/biz/ - Business & Finance

Why don't you people use math?

>>446
you're wrong m8

>>571

Because it involves improper methodology for economics, rendering the answers derived from it incorrect. Econometrics is pseudoscience.

>>729
Explain.

>>814
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard38.html

It's a little long, but it explains both the methodology that Austrians use, as well as some of the shortcomings of the econometric-based methodology typically used by Keynesians, Marxists, and Chicago school economists.

nah, let's not

Any thoughts on Roger Garrison's model?

>>2644

Never saw the need for graphs when basically all economic phenomena can be much more effectively conveyed verbally.

Austrian

like High Explaustrian

Can anyone tell me how there's a demand for money? That makes no fucking sense. Fucking Keynes and Rothbard and Mises fell for this shit.

Friedman is an economist. So is Keynes, even if his good points do not support his generally unreliable theories.

Rothbard is a RINO shitdick pretending to be an economist.

Austrian economists are the feminists of money. Nobody cares about your feelings police fantasy world.

>>729
>>1036
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_10.pdf

This was what a professor of mine wrote on the subject. He constantly goes on about this stuff in class, every day.

>>2898
sometimes it is more useful to hold on to money than to spend it.

>>2898
>Can anyone tell me how there's a demand for money?

Are you currently using a computer you bought to type this?

Because there is no way in hell you can have goods as complex as a computer through the barter system. Beyond the convenience money provides by eliminating the annoying problems inherent in trying to trade chickens for a wagon, it also allows for items of immense complexity to be developed. It also allows you to purchase these complex items, because trying to buy an ipod with beaver pelts is going to be incredibly difficult.

This is two reasons why there is a demand for money.

>>3005
But there isn't "the demand for money." Everyone has their own individual demand for money, and the aggregation doesn't seem to be justified.

>>2950
No argument detected.

>>3359
I don't need one. Chicago economics: based on facts and reasoning. Keynesian economics: based on facts and reasoning (still wrong, but you get the point). Austrian economics: based on feelings and a persecution complex.

>>3430
>I don't need one.

>Accuses others of not basing things on facts and reasons
>"Le Australian economics is shit invented by le rich and emotional teenagers XDD"

>>3494
austrians literally reject evidence based reasoning.

>>3540
Because you can't isolate MUH VARIABLES.

Well Austrian Economics benefitted my country

>>3540

>>3540
The methodology of physics is not some magical device that accurately explains every facet of objective knowledge.

Austrian school economists actually have the brains to realize this, and find that the methodology of physics is simply incapable of providing objective conclusions in the realm of economics.

Furthermore, it would be unnecessary even if you could, as economics can be understood perfectly clearly through deductive reasoning.

Gonna be really interesting to see what economic school the /biz/ hivemind decides is the best over the coming weeks

I quite enjoy listening to Russ Roberts' weekly podcast at econtalk.

Been doing it ever since I found out about him through that first Keynes vs. Hayek video.

>>3141
>Money is the only good without a money price.
>Thus, there are many markets for money (as many are there different types of goods).
So how is there "the" demand for money?

A demand implies a quantity and price, but how can there possibly be a price for money?

>>3784

>Breaking quotes up to make someone look bad

Huffington Post pls go.

>>3818
It'll obviously be autistrian

>>3866
>>Money is the only good without a money price.

It has a goods price.

>>3768
>economics can be understood perfectly clearly through deductive reasoning.

You're trolling, right? No one is actually this dumb.

Serbian economics is the only acceptable school of economics. Discuss.

>>3887

All of your arguments are "lol ur all dum".

AWWWWW YEAH

>>2950
>Rothbard is a RINO shitdick pretending to be an economist.
This is bait.

You've obviously never read any of rothbard's countless books.

>>3910
But there's a millions of different goods, all with different exchange ratios. However, goods only have one price (whether that's measured in dollars, euros, pesos, whatever).

>>3946
thats the most retarded thing I have ever read. The reason workers work for wages is due to the vast investment cost of materials and the fact that they need to eat. What a silver spooned moron.

God fucking DAMMIT I love this board already.

Now, how do we start a political movement?

>>4000
Needs are subjective.

At the core, if you are anti-capitalism, you are disagree with the concept of personal property. Crony capitalism is evil, and that is the state of the world. Don't let that fool you into fleeing to socialism.

>>446

muh nigga

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LAC7TkpFqc

>>4038
>needing to eat is subjective
jesus christ

>>3953
I'm actually not him. But seriously, do you really believe that? I know of nothing that has ever happened in the real world that suggests that Austrian theories are correct. It's not empirical at all, and it's based on a bunch of shitty flawed assumptions.

>>4131
What is necessity? Just to barely live? Just to be conscious? Just to be brain dead? To have a relatively comfortable lifestyle? When do needs stop and when do needs begin?

>>446
Lel

>>3971

I'm not quite following your point.

I mean, you don't really need to think of this in terms of any sort of economic theory, but simply introspection into your own life. Do you (as in "you" personally) enjoy the utility money provides? Do you enjoy buying stuff with money instead of carting around chickens to exchange?

If you would give up a chicken, mow a lawn, or give a backrub to someone in exchange for having the convenience that money provides, you can see how there is a demand for money (as you can see that demand within yourself).

>>4038
Everything is subjective.

>>4131

It is. What if you're suicidal? What if you have late-stage terminal cancer?

All value is subjective, including "need" in the economic sense of the word.

>>4164
>>4207
If the worker can't afford to feed himself how the fuck is he going to work for you

>>446
don't know enough about it yet.

What the fuck then who is actually right

>>4149
You don't get utility out of money unless you're scrooge mcduck, but that's more of a tongue-in-cheek statement.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't fit well into standard Supply and Demand analysis. Pretend I'm an apple grower. You might say that I sell apples to get the money, but it goes both ways. The person buying the apples gives me the money because he has a demand for apples. To be consistent, since we're doing this both ways, we have to look at this from the perspective of their demands for apples and not their supply of money.

In other words, can you possibly draw me a supply and demand graph (even if it's totally superficial and hypothetical) of the farmer's demand for money and the buyer's demand for apples?

>>4129
>It's not empirical at all

The axioms are empirical.

>>4233
Not him, but that's totally fucking irrelevant.

>>4255
Austrians.

Do you not want a massive abundance of savings for you and your family?

Do you not want everyone to be able to compete with the big guys because prices for capital goods are super low?

>>446

>Austrian School
>Free Market Economics
>Good

Oh wait, you're serious!

Only Merito-Mercantilism can save us, son.

So come and get your daily dose.

>>4377
No it isn't.

>>4000
>silver spoon moron
That is what I think is one the biggest problem with most thinkers, they are so far from regular working people.

>>4306
>In other words, can you possibly draw me a supply and demand graph (even if it's totally superficial and hypothetical) of the farmer's demand for money and the buyer's demand for apples?

I've always hated supply and demand graphs, I just think of it in terms of verbal logic (graphs don't mentally "click" for me).

ITT: child abusers and child molesters

>>4327
the gas laws are empirical.

Anyone who attempts to use them in order to predict the weather rather than use of data recordings is retarded.

>>4439

>>4439
>taking shit extremely out of context
>nitpicking at small things because you tried to refute the core of our ideology and got destroyed

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

>>4439

Right on brother!

>>4530

>>4570

How on earth is he shitposting?

>>4570
>shitposting
See:
>>4439

Now lets all bask in your projection and butthurt.

>>4396
The graphs are just visual representations of the logic. This is a D&D analysis a supposed to a S&D analysis, which makes a demand (and supply as well) for money impossible.

>>4530

How is it taken out of context?

https://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

>>4713
>How is it taken out of context?

We've explained this to you repeatedly in the constant fucking threads you make on /pol/. You're literally a shill for stormfront.

>>4439
I always thought austrian economics is bullshit, but now I have proof. Thanks.

>>4381

"Good" is a value preference. The objective truth of Austrian economics has no bearing on whether you find it "good" or not.

>>4758
Well, I don't see it here. You said the austrians are right, and that image sounds a bit strange to me

>>5082

That was pretty Euphoric bro.

>Objective proof
Put down the Ayn Rand and read up on Comparative Advantage. I don't mean read the wikipedia page (though it's a good start), I mean read a scholarly article about Comparative advantage that isn't from 1970.

>>4381
>Merito-Mercantilism

Never heard about that. Care to elaborate? I'll take anything over the mindless utopian drivel the Austrian fanboys spew.

>>5142
>That was pretty Euphoric bro.

How is that euphoric? If I replaced "austrian economics" with "germ theory", would it still be euphoric?

>>5163

It's fucking made up. By me.

But it's based on research by the only one doing research on Comparative Advantage in this day and age. Ian Fletcher. Basically, he takes apart all of the shitty research done in the 70s on it that is basically the only thing holding up our WTO wet dream that we're currently in.

Where I disagree with Fletcher's "Neo-Neo-Mercantilism" is that he basically says "And thus we need to raise tariffs on everything forever." Which is a pretty shitty idea. What I espouse is the creation of an agency that pulls together economic data on things such as Labor Laws, Environmental Laws, Trade Laws, targeted subsidies, economic and monetary manipulation and the like. Take all that data and set a tariff rate for each country based on the closeness to our values. So countries like Canada or Germany will have a 0% tariff rate because their close labor laws and such, while China or Singapore will have something like 13-14% (nothing crazy, just enough to balance trade so that those differences in law is accounted for)

Basically, the idea is to start basing our tariff laws on actual economics, instead of ideology or who we hate. We announce it to the world, and then say that we will not change the tariff unless you change those laws. Thus it avoids a trade war while also incentivizing fair trade, which is the only true route to free trade.

The biggest problem with our current system is that. Free trade incentivizes regimes to not change laws regarding labor or the environment so they can preserve their place as a cheap workforce, even though their economies are ready for it.

It's basic game theory really. If you set it up so that you're capitulating, and you always capitulate no matter what, and you tell your trading partners you always will no matter what. Eventually, they'll stop capitulating and start taking advantage. The only way out is to change the game and make it an incentive to capitulate as well.

>>5400

>Protectionism

>>5441

Nice image there, buddy.

Why don't you tell me all about Comparative Advantage. I'd love to hear how all those assumptions it relies upon are met in this day and age in the U.S.

>>5400
tl;dr fucking nerd

mike bloy wonder

>>1

it's all about the mother-fuckin' Mises to the mother-fuckin' Hayek.

Austrian economics is the best economics.

Alright, this economic theory stuff sounds interesting. Where should I start with studying it on my own time. Any books that are suggested for beginners that touch on most of the major theories?

>>5607

I'd adivse looking at Ian Fletcher's book, but stop before he starts say what he thinks should be done, because he's a no talent hack in terms of actually thinking up new ideas. As far as his observations of the issues at hand, there's none more exact than his. Of course, Marx was basically the same thing, great observations, terrible ideas...

You're about to be bombarded with Hayek and the like.

>>5400
So essentially "Let's brainwash the world with economics"? Cause that sounds very .... creepily authoritarian. Also, what happens when another country is able to outperform your economy, tariffs and all? What happens if an economy starts with a higher base pool of economic potential and radically divergent values? Wont it just subjugate your country by the same token?

>>5607

Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt.

One of my personal favorites for getting you to think like an economist is Frederic Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen". Link related: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

>>5668
Thanks anon, that sounds like a good place to start.

>>5749
I'll check these out too. Thanks.

>>5699

>Also, what happens when another country is able to outperform your economy, tariffs and all?

Then it outperforms our economy. We work to make it better. If we can't, then we're fucked. Welcome to economics. If we don't change with the times, we die.

>What happens if an economy starts with a higher base pool of economic potential and radically divergent values? Wont it just subjugate your country by the same token?

Yes. We either keep sucking their dick or we work to get out from under them.

I'm not saying it's good for the rest of the world in terms of their ideologies. Just us. It's basically the thing we should have been doing since the 80s, but haven't. And if we don't do it, eventually, someone else will once they gain the reigns. The only way to keep America on top is to keep America on top.

>>5756

Think of how much GDP increased from that.

>>4426
head shot fuck austrian economists

>>5825

Let me add to my post here....

You sound like you want us to be on top, yet don't want us to step on other people to get there.

The problem with that, is that it doesn't take into account the way we got here. We already stepped on others to get where we are. And there are other countries already working to get out from under us. There's no way to get their good will at this point.

For a very long time, after the second Great War, it seemed like we were invincible economically, because there were no competitors. Thus it made sense to drop tariffs.

But we're way past that, and there's plenty of competitors now, and they want one thing. To unseat us and assert their ideology across the world.

>>446
>austrian school
>correct

>>5988

>Why aren't countries basing their economies on the writings of Marx :^(

>>5749
thank god communism is stateless then

>>6035

Just like in the Soviet Union.

>>6079
that's statist socialism

>>6095

MaoistRebelNews explains otherwise. It's the communism that they invisioned, with only a few problems here and there.

>>6095

>It's not REAL Communism!!!!

On average, do not trust people who self-identify with a country that no longer exists. There is a reason they don't exist anymore.

>>5607
>Alright, this economic theory stuff sounds interesting.
How an economy grows and why it doesn't by Irwin Schiff

and if you want an actual book then Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard

>>6035
>thank god communism is stateless then
top kek

>>6180
>MaoistRebelNews explains otherwise.
HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA

OH GOD

AHAHAHAHHAHAHA

OH WAIT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SERIOUS

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>6186
Keyword: envisioned. The establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the mere beginning in statist-vanguard terms, as opposed to anarcho-communism. The Soviets couldn't even implement Marx' vision of direct democracy, let alone get rid of the state completely.

>>6186
>>6433
Read a book.

>>6420
>Reccomending one book by a felon and another by a child molester

>>6469
But are the things they say in the books wrong?

>>6495

Yes, all of it.

Btw, both of them are jewish.

Anyone who is a radical and claims to be an authority on economics is a fraud.

>>6468
>Read a book.
You read a book.

>>6469
>HOW DARE YOU NOT PAY YOUR TAXES YOU FELON

Reddit pls go, you aren't fooling anyone

>>7146
>eddit pls go, you aren't fooling anyone

>The only people against tax evasion are reddittors

>>7631
>calling wanting your own freedom "tax evasion"

Lel, dat bootlicking

>>7838
>calling tax evasion freedom

this is what libertarians really believe

>>9079
>calling taxes freedom

This is what communists actually believe.

Hey /biz/, when will the government let the free market fix it?

>>9126

Yeah I remember when those famous communists, the Pharaohs, invented taxes.