/lit/ - Literature

Nothing weird about it, the peak of Germany was the peak of western civilisation.

>>15436388
Nothing weird about it, the peak of Western civilisation was the peak of Protestantism.

Based Krauts

Will krauts ever stop enjoying the smell of their own farts?

>>15436388
Which book by Hayek do you consider one of the most important in history? He literally just repackaged Austrian economics and sold it to Anglos. I'd get Menger, but really? Hayek?

>>15436388
Memery aside, demigods of thought. Germanic accomplishments crown humanity.

>>15436672
>Leaves off Charlemagne, Barbarossa and Bismarck
Lol pleb b8

>>15436388
>Hayek
>German

is this bait?

>>15436676
Not a particular book but his work on information is highly relevant. People still don't get it even though it is one of the most important realizations in history. I think there are maybe four Nobels connected to that insight, the last one only handed out in 2007.

>>15436676
He debunked Keynesianism within the Keynesian framework. Austrians never bothered because they were too busy purity spiralling.

>>15436732
You're on a site full of Nazis. At this point, they probably think the Austrian empire is the rightful possession of the Prussians.

>>15436754
I've talked to many Austrians in my life and they all feel German. Nothing to do with Nazism.

>>15436743
And that's the most important economist ever? Not Smith, who founded the modern version? Not Ricardo, who made it into a science and created a significant number of ideas that are the fundamentals of it? Not Menger or Jevons, who founded the modern school with their ideas of marginal utility? All these people are the bases along which every nobel prize in economics has been awarded. I'd even get Buchanan for founding public choice or Keynes for single-handedly creating an entire economic school of thought. But Hayek? For writings on information? Indeed, I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean the essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society?" That is probably his most influential essay. It's just nothing compared to the huge number of great British and American economists in the past two centuries.

>>15436747
>He debunked Keynesianism
He wasn't even a minor part of the debunking of Keynesianism. No one would say "Keynes is false because of Hayek." They'd say Keynes is false mostly because of Friedman, perhaps Simon Kuznets or Robert Lucas Jr.
>Austrians were spiraling
Dumbass, Hayek was an Austrian.

>>15436767
Hayek buried Keynesians with their own concepts (they had to reform to stay relevant) and dealt the final blow to Marxists (they are not taken seriously anymore by real economists because of Hayek's theorem). He's the most important economist.

>>15436779
>Hayek was an Austrian
the ancap school, retard

> No one would say "Keynes is false because of Hayek."
except the petty squarrel kept going because Friedman never bothered to get down into the mud and debunk them with their own concepts, Hayek buried them

>>15436747
>He debunked Keynesianism

Keynes and the Austrian school never really got anywhere with economics, it was just a huge shitflinging shitfest and the only economists who won were the neoclassicals and Lausanne school and Game Theory school economists who just didn't give a fuck about anyone except 19th century economists.

Lets be honest, both Keynesianism and the Austrian school were a mistake. :3

>>15436388
>Hayek

>>15436788
>>15436803
Hayek was the only somewhat respectable Austrian school economist, simply BECAUSE there was no shitflinging in his 'Road to Serfdom' a rather simplistic, but valid, cautionary tale of intervention in the economic sphere. He even said intervention was necessary at some points, and went on to categorize where, economically.

Hayek developed, within that book, similarly to Keynes, his economic system. And as far as he conflated terms, it was somewhat valid. :3

I've also gone on the record for saying Keynes also had some valid insights.

Read Keynes for interventionist insights into fixing the economy, not for his system.

Read Hayek for his system, not for his interventionist insights into fixing the economy.

>>15436388
>hayek and not marx
ok pseud

Monopoly fan fiction.

>>15436837
Really not applicable anymore :3

>>15436821
oh look it's that dumbass econ grad who uses ":3". haven't you learned that economics is a pseudoscience yet?

>>15436854
Oh hey it's that fucking retard who spends all his time reading philosophy. Haven't you learned philosophy is for fags?

>>15436788
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. The Chicago School is obviously the reason why Keynes isn't taken seriously. They also actually argued with Keynes from his perspective, which depended a lot on empirics. It was Hayek who refused to do so by remaining on his fucking a priori high horse.
>>15436788
>ancap school, retard
Do you view econ in politics? If so, you shouldn't involve yourself in this debate. Austrian is generally used to describe a methodology, the psychological school, based on Menger, who often based his ideas not in empirics or mathematics but in psychological concepts (like Hayek).
>The squabble kept going on
Not really. From the mid 70s to 2008, there were like no major Keynesian economists and it was generally a frowned upon doctrine.
>Hayek buried them
Fucking idiot. See above. I don't even know what work you're talking about. At least cite a paper or a book or something.
>>15436821
>Road to Serfdom
I don't know if you'e this same anon, but you definitely shouldn't be in this conversation. Road to Serfdom isn't an econ book. No one thinks it is. It isn't why socialism isn't taken seriously. That's the economic calculation debate that shortly preceded it, largely done by people like Lionel Robbins and Von Mises. That's what's actually taken seriously in economics, not Road to Serfdom.

>>15436767
You are overestimating the economists you mention. They also had their predecessors and often made errors that those didn't. But I'm not defending the meme selection and I'm not saying that Hayek came up with it from nothing but this is how these accolades work. Frankly for me this goes back to an intuition that was already experienced by Edmund Burke. It gives insight into why we need to humble ourselves before society, how we can be directed by a greater collective intelligence. It shows why planned societies are chaotic. This isn't just about economics but also culture, I think it is essential to understand human society.

>>15436847
>dismisses 150 years of scholarship
so this is the power of econ grads

>>15436388
>uses completely arbitrary judgement
>''heh, get owned''

I don't even like brits but that was just weird

>>15436867
Ahahahah okay...

Buddy this post is why I'm not going to engage, you're mentioning the Chicago School and von Mises in high praise.... sigh...

Trust me everyone else, Hayek is the respectable one... and the Road to Serfdom actually does lay out an economic system.

At the same time, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is also an interesting read and has some valid insights.

Both are mediocre however, and there is much better literature and 'problem's to solve within economics.

>>15436871
>caring about what you got your degree in
>thinks the entire world revolves around Marx
So this is the power of sociology nerds.

>>15436870
What the fuck are you talking about?
Carl Menger and Jevons came up with marginal utility against the common ideas of the time. Ricardo made his entire doctrine out of barely anything. Economics was a philosophical theory before him; after him, it was what all policy was based off of in most of Europe (definitely in Britain). Smith made up the thing from the Physiocrats, who had barely any methodology at all and were more politicians than economists. These people were the people upon which all fields of econ are based. Hayek made a point you agreed with that had been previously made by Von Mises, by Wieser before him, and by Bohm-Bawerk by him. But because you agree with that point, Hayek is the most important.

>>15436886
Hayek is the most important because he was the most level headed and rational. :3

Most other Austrian economists are incessantly bickering with government intervention, while Hayek actually advocates for it at times.

>>15436672
Marx was not Germanic

>>15436874
>You're mentioning Chicago and Von Mises in high praise
I'm giving a history of econ. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong. Also, it's literally impossible to say that Hayek's economic system, which was Von Mises' with a few minor differences, is wrong, but Hayek is right.
>Trust me and everyone else, Hayek is the respectable one
Chicago economics is far more regularly cited than Hayek. Becker founded a school, so did Buchanan, Hayek was a minor person.
>Road to Serfdom does lay out an economic system
I've read it. Where's the microeconomics? Based on that, can you tell me why firms exist? Perhaps how costs are deemed on the market? Based on that book, can you tell me if Hayek believes perfect competition is an accurate depiction of real world market forces?
I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Road to Serfdom didn't have any reaction within economics. The big Hayek book that did (actually, it's an article) was The Use of Knowledge in Society, which was an article arguing an economic point about calculation under socialism, which would later influence many economists.
Please learn more about economic history, because you seem like a real pop pseud from this post (citing Road to Serfdom and the General Theory as if they are the two only books written by economists)

>>15436913
Marx was a standard German Jew there were millions of those what are you on about you fucking asshat?

>>15436890
None of the people I mentioned (except Menger, but you can take him off the list and only include Jevons on the marginal utility point) were Austrians. Adam Smith wasn't an Austrian. Ricardo was not an Austrian. Jevons, not an Austrian,
As for the Austrians I cited as the source of Hayek's views: Bohm-Bawerk was not opposed to all government. Von Mises worked in the government of Austria. Wieser was not opposed to all government.

>>15436886
I'm not being eccentric in my admiration of his work, you are in its dismissal. I have to sleep now have good one.

>>15436923
My friend, some of the most important books on economics do not lay out a working, functioning system. You are asking some broad questions. I doubt you would even like my answer to why firms exist after reading The General Theory...

As for perfect competition, Hayek takes a spiritual viewpoint, as I'm sure you know, that the psychological signals being given and received by the free market match up with the prices in the economy given many different circumstances.

But it's so much more than that. So, so much more. And I'm not even going to sit here and explain the book to you when you should have read it yourself. In the meantime, I'm reading actual mathematics, you know, the mathematical kind that utilizes set theory and topology.

Have fun being a pseud.

>>15436926
>German Jew
If one is a Jew, that override their other ancestry and national background. Marx was just a Jew. He was as German as an African in Ethiopia.

>>15436388
>>15436388
only humanitiescucks still care about kant.
hayek, mendel, planck are midgets compared to smith, darwin, newton.
All the good germans were jews. sorry.

>>15436937
Government INTERVENTION, not government.

Obviously if the government of Austria needed to prop up or reinforce their gold-standard or silver-standard or a bimetallic standard as Leon Walras advocates at the end of Principles of Pure Economics, Von Mises would love to partake. But if you've really read those authors you should know that Hayek actually advocates for the government to prop up monopolies as opposed to leaving certain things up to the free market initially.

I never made the claim those were Austrians you were complaining that he was simply stating Hayek was one of the greatest Austrian economists. It's a popular view on here, maybe not within Austrian economics, but certainly on here, so you wanted to be an edgy contrarian and go against the grain. Nice try.

>>15436942
Oh that's the stupidest shit I've ever heard. I mean, I almost don't mind you being antisemitic (although I think that's a bit stupid, despite how much I see they overrepresent their sects in finance) as much as I hate you being just definitionally challenged. Marx was a German Jew, get the fuck over it Adolf Hitler.

>>15436941
>spiritual viewpoint to perfect competition
I love you. You said that phrase.
>I won't explain the book to you, you know, he has views
I don't doubt he has views because I've read several books by Hayek (Road to Serfdom, The Fatal Conceit, Constitution of Liberty, and I'm reading Individualism and Economic Order right now). Just that they aren't explained in any detail in Road to Serfdom, which is largely an ideological book.
>I'm now going to read real math, unlike your pseud economics stuff
If you argue about economics, don't say it's a "pseud" field at the end. If it is, why do you even care? Why do you even any economist is important if it's such a "pseud" field compared to set theory?

This post was just vile. It was retractions and then anger. Do you feel smart when you post something like this?

>>15436978
I was obviously talking about economics, you dingbat. Not the qualitative kind, the quantitative.

But unlike you, I can understand both, and understand the spiritual aspects of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. I don't think you understand either Hayek or Von Mises very well if you don't think their stance on government intervention is very different.

>>15436968
Kind of. The original statement was "Hayek was the most important economist of all time." If your argument is "Hayek is the most important Austrian economist of all time," I'd probably agree with you. The statement originally made was not that. As for the statement that Hayek is popular because he isn't as aggressively anti-government as the others, I don't think economists care. Real radicals have thrived in economics (James Buchanan, for instance), and I don't think political moderation is a major part of economic success. Perhaps political success, so if your point is something like "politicians read Hayek, so it's important." That might be right. But I don't think, "Hayek was moderate, therefore important within economics" makes any sense.

>>15437003
I never said Hayek's views on government were the same as Von Mises. I would like to see where you think I said that. I said Hayek's views on economics was the same as Von Mises. On methodology, on price theory, on microeconomics, on business cycles, they were the same. The only thing they differed on was time preference and politics, neither of which are very big differences.

>>15437010
Alright, you're a good sport. I don't think those political differences are that small though, especially since it changes the characterization of the work.

For instance, at the end of the revised edition of the Theory of Money and Credit, Von Mises has a rather charged polemic against the left. I did not see this in The Road to Serfdom. I did see it littered throughout The General Theory though, which decreased my appreciation of that work considerably as well.

>>15437026
Okay, I get that.
So what you're saying is that Hayek is the most important economist for you, that is, that he is the person who helped you develop your ideas the most, rather than the most important economist ever born to the development of the field. I get that.

>>15437041
Oh yeah, and I don't even think I would make the argument that Hayek was the most important economist of all time either, that was someone else.

I just had some scruples with your posts :3

>>15436683
Charlemagne unironically did nothing wrong.

>>15436949
>All the good germans were jews.
That really only gives you Einstein, Marx, and...Heine...Mendelsohn? You really wanna try that Nigel?

Bump

>>15436388
Applies to actual historians as well- Mommsen, von Ranke, Dilthey, and...um, sssSpengler.

>>15436388
AFAIK Dostoevsky who wrote many of the most important books in history isn't German

>>15436642
fpbp

>>15436732
>>15436754
>NOOO THEY'RE CANADIAN NOT AMERICAN
>NOOO THEY'RE NEW ZEALANDISH NOT AUSTRALIAN
>NOOO THEY'RE BELGIAN NOT DUTCH
>NOOO THEY'RE LIECHTENSTEINISH NOT SWISS
>NOOO THEY'RE BELARUSIAN NOT RUSSIAN

>>15436938
>I have no arguments and now must flee.

>>15438472
Good to see you are getting into reading young man. But please refrain from speaking on matters you know nothing about.

>>15436652
> Mendel
> Protestant