wtf i hate central planning now

File: 12 KB, 220x349, The-Road-to-Serfdom-First-Edition1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 26 17:45:45 2018 No.11217372 [Reply] [Original]

wtf i hate central planning now

>>	Anonymous Sat May 26 22:40:09 2018 No.11218698 >>11217372 If you didn't intuitively hate central planning before reading Hayek, you are a simpering retard. If you didn't unironically hate central planning after reading Hayek, you've got rocks in your head.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 01:14:41 2018 No.11219229 >>11217372 Central planning has nothing to do with serfdom. Just look at the plight of the millinnials and younger generations in 'Murika today. Serfed all the way.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 01:20:34 2018 No.11219251 i have the definitive edition, its really good

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 01:22:38 2018 No.11219263 >>11219251 Same, been meaning to go back through it again, but I want to pick up Constitution of Liberty too

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 01:45:14 2018 No.11219320 >>11218698 >If you didn't intuitively hate central planning before reading Hayek, you are a simpering retard. Objectively false.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 01:51:53 2018 No.11219338 >>11219251 Same, got mine last week for $2 second hand

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 02:23:53 2018 No.11219428 >>11218698 You sound like a loser

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 02:26:11 2018 No.11219437 This book doesn't even understand why socialism is bad, I mean it achieved a good effect but boy could it have backfired hard.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 03:12:04 2018 No.11219572 >>11218698 Some of the smartest people I know are literal marxists. I think it takes a fair bit of intelligence to defend such an objectively bad idea. Also, you're a fag.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 03:16:08 2018 No.11219584 >>11219572 One of the smartest guy I know is a literal blut und boden retard. Gentile and Croce scholar, can talk with him about Kant for hours and never get tired. Also, you're a fag.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 03:18:14 2018 No.11219590 >>11219572 >Some of the smartest people I know are literal marxists. Doesn't compute since Marxism is a massive red flag for retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 03:38:04 2018 No.11219656 File: 40 KB, 686x800, ido.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11217372 >Reads only Hayek >Knows nothing about Lange and Lerner superior scholarship What a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 03:40:15 2018 No.11219667 >>11219656 >not Mises-Rothbard-Hoppe.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 04:26:48 2018 No.11219848 File: 17 KB, 220x349, 1527371145884.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11217372

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 04:28:00 2018 No.11219853 >>11219667 the holy trinity of child trafficking

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 05:02:23 2018 No.11219934 >>11217372 Businesses are centrally planned.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 05:11:13 2018 No.11219959 >>11219263 Law, Legislation and Liberty is Hayek's magnum opus. Skip Constitution of Liberty tbqh - it's a good exposition but it doesn't reach the truth depths of his thought.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:07:44 2018 No.11220112 >>11219590 >said guy who never studied marxism dialectical materialism and marxism in general is a huge red pill if you actually take your time and study it. believe me, you won't be disappointed.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:17:12 2018 No.11220143 >>11220112 People ofter forgot that economic theory is not essential part of marxism. You can study dialectical materialism and skip Capital entirely.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:23:27 2018 No.11220169 >>11220143 Then you end up with ahistorical pseudoscience rendition of history and you can't ignore his economic, failed, theory for it brings to light failures of his philosophy in general.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:25:15 2018 No.11220179 File: 33 KB, 485x340, ayy l mao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11220112 >>11220143 Just a few million more deaths on the road to enlightenment, my friends!

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:26:42 2018 No.11220184 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:28:10 2018 No.11220190 >>11220184 Keyne's understanding of value just sounds really fucking crazy to me.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:35:12 2018 No.11220207 Economics without mathematics is just political philosophy. Hayek was a spooked libertarian who got BTFO'd by Keynes.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 06:37:27 2018 No.11220214 >>11220207 Keynes ignored how wants, needs, purposes, aims, means, are generated in people and formed values. He just fucking ignored them. just like that. How do you do that?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 12:20:17 2018 No.11221221 >>11219572 Not all Marxists support central planning

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 12:22:02 2018 No.11221230 >>11220112 “Dialectical materialism” has nothing to do with Marx

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 12:37:46 2018 No.11221308 >>11221221 How would resources be distributed without central planning or money?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 13:48:25 2018 No.11221663 >>11220207 How can people like you speak so confidently despite not knowing anything?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 14:34:44 2018 No.11221930 >>11221308 >Marxism is just when people get free shit lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 14:39:03 2018 No.11221960 marx was the most influential 19th century economist. sadly, he got it all wrong. class struggle is the dumb man's redpill

Anonymous Sun May 27 16:12:12 2018 No.11222493

>>11219656
in Caldwell's introduction to TRTS, he goes over how Hayek had already previously addressed the market socialism shit, and how Hayek's later work (on price coordination) would serve to rebut the trial-and-error view of pricing in a market socialist economic system. read the price theorists, you dipshit pseud

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 18:56:25 2018 No.11223244 >>11219572 You fell for the bait

Anonymous Sun May 27 19:13:57 2018 No.11223326

I'll never understand the obsession people have with "the economy." It's literally a collective falsehood that only has value because we decide it has value.

All these tweed-wearing academics sit around debating with each other and stroking their own egos over who has the best idea about how this collective lie ""works.""

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 19:15:24 2018 No.11223334 File: 128 KB, 960x906, 1508935650372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11219667 Patrician taste anon

Anonymous Sun May 27 19:59:25 2018 No.11223602

>>11223326
"The economy" is how resources are distributed throughout society and it's important because we live in a civilization. Arguments about the economy can be reduced to disagreements on how resources are most efficiently distributed. This is important because when economies are inefficient people starve.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 27 22:32:21 2018 No.11224418 File: 20 KB, 200x280, ortega1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11221663 Observe the mass-man at work, anon

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 02:14:13 2018 No.11225236 >>11219934 Well I learned something new. I was under the impression that individual businesses managed their own affairs.

Anonymous Mon May 28 06:25:17 2018 No.11225925

>>11223326
>the economy

Sowell opens up Basic Economics with a quote from Lionel Robbins:

>Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

This is a really useful perspective that you can apply to many situations. Everything is a trade-off.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:31:37 2018 No.11225936 >>11225925 also known as sunk-cost

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:34:05 2018 No.11225941 >state intervention leads to more and more If this was true, we'd have full central planning in the whole world by now. I wish he was right.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:35:33 2018 No.11225945 >>11225941 Central Planning is inefficient garbage

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:46:31 2018 No.11225977 >>11225945 sure thing bud

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:50:06 2018 No.11225985 >>11225977 Why do you think you know better than the actual participants in exchange and trade? You are detached from the trans-action, these people are not, yet you think you can be a seer and mindreader at once. How?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:58:38 2018 No.11226017 >>11225985 I don't know, how do corporations do it?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:00:45 2018 No.11226027 >>11226017 by not sticking to 1 fucking central plan of transactions predicated on seer capabilities of people

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:05:18 2018 No.11226049 >>11226027 Sounds like you built a nice strawman of what central planning effectively is.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:07:32 2018 No.11226060 >>11226027 Also transactions don't factor into this at all. That's the fucking point. Neoclassical babbies need to get away from their autistic "John sells 10 gilded dragon dildos to Jack" thought experiments and look at the production side.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:11:02 2018 No.11226072 >>11226060 I'm talking about every single trans-action the people have in the chain, to think you can plan to this is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:14:45 2018 No.11226080 >>11220112 no respectable Marxist has believed I dialectal materialism since at least the Frangfart school

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:17:06 2018 No.11226089 >>11219848 Severely underrated.

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:19:46 2018 No.11226099

>>11225985
First of all, with regards to what? There are many different ways to centrally manage an economy.

What's interesting about Keynesianism is that Keynes' theories are fundamentally built on a bunch of contradictions, but the core of statist economics like that is correct, like for instance, some of Fisher's stuff.

For instance, the Federal Reserve, or some kind of bank, HAS to manage the banks and interest rates, otherwise the fluctuations would be too severe for anyone to handle.

Keynes' theory of directed investment seems to make sense as well. Insular areas with lower proportions of their income going to consumption are going to require more investment to create jobs than poorer, consumption-based areas.

As with most things, the correct theories seem to be a mixture of things, but I think the thing that some economists like Keynes or Fisher miss is that the price is determined by competitive forces with regards to how much they control the means of production. Worker syndicates and factory owners really determine the prices, not consumers.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:22:32 2018 No.11226108 >>11226099 >Keynesianism is that it is literally fucking voodoo

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:23:34 2018 No.11226113

>>11226072
>to think you can plan to this is absurd
If you left the controlled environment of the propaganda known as economy textbooks and actually looked at the economy for once in your life you'd realise this already happens. I bet you also believe in the social contract.

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:24:53 2018 No.11226117

>>11226113
>If you left the controlled environment of the propaganda known as economy textbooks and actually looked at the economy
I'm not even talking about economy yet but simply how humans grow to men and how they interact each other.

>believe in social contract
I do not. It's ahistorical voodoo make believe.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:25:30 2018 No.11226122 >>11226108 Thanks for not reading my post again.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:26:22 2018 No.11226125 File: 144 KB, 720x960, 1524628042783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11226122 I'm not going to read massive blogposts, I'm going to require fast and straight to the point greentexts.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:26:25 2018 No.11226126 >>11226117 >I'm not even talking about economy yet but simply how humans grow to men and how they interact each other. Is this supposed to be one of these "capitalism is human nature" type arguments?

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:27:46 2018 No.11226129

>>11226099
Problem with Keynesianism is that it doesn't address it's own shortcomings. Even if you grant that deficit spending during an economic downturn is a good idea to boost the economy, if you don't have a serious antidote to paying back what you have loaned, you are going to end up with a situation where your whole country is going to get progressively poorer as time goes on.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:28:01 2018 No.11226131 >>11226125 That doesn't make for good intellectual conversation, bud.

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:31:24 2018 No.11226137

>>11226129
Right. It's not a longterm economic philosophy. Perhaps it stems from some of Keynes' theories being loosely defined.

He does raise some valid points though, and his ideas should always be consulted because there is a lot of truth to them. He was an avid learner and reader, he knew quite a lot.

I like to find one contradiction in his General Theory per chapter though. It's a little game I play. If you mix and match so many terms like he does you are bound to come up with a contradiction like that.

Economists who take the mean do it best: mix mathematics with terminology and empirical data just right and you have yourself a good economics book. Walras' Elements of Pure Economics is a masterpiece, for instance.

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:34:03 2018 No.11226147

>>11226126
You can be inefficient or efficient, I take the more efficient method, you can be stuck with text books fantasizing about collectivism.
>>11226129
Keynes explanation of value of wages and prices and how they're formed is about as crazy as labor theory of value

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:35:33 2018 No.11226154 >>11226147 >>11226129 Yeah but you're still not reading mathematical economics, so you lose.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:37:18 2018 No.11226161 >>11226154 if mathematics can explain it why is Eurozone in crisis, just 2+2=4 magick it out?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:39:03 2018 No.11226170 >>11226161 You're too stupid for mathematical economics. I get it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:39:36 2018 No.11226173 >>11226170 Why wasn't it solved by mathematics anon

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:40:37 2018 No.11226177 >>11218698 >not reading Cockshot Nigger

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:40:45 2018 No.11226178 >>11226173 I said I get it. No need to prove the case any further.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:40:51 2018 No.11226180 >66/6/ Begone, Satanic thread statistics!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:41:16 2018 No.11226182 >>11226178 Can't answer why there's a crisis around Eurozone if its just 2+2=4 easy pez?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:41:28 2018 No.11226183 File: 131 KB, 638x479, rey-ty-aristotles-politics-in-his-own-words-lecture-notes-10-638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11226126

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:49:30 2018 No.11226217

>>11226147
>muh efficiency
It's really easy to be "efficient" if you're the one to define the criteria of efficiency. Shipping shit all around the globe isn't "efficient" just because transportation and Indian child labour is cheap.

Also even thinking in categories like collectivism and individualism identifies you as an ideologised dunce.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:50:52 2018 No.11226224 >>11226137 >Perhaps it stems from some of Keynes' theories being loosely defined. Actually it stems from mathematical prediction. Deficit spending causes inflation, and inflation is essentially another word for poverty.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:53:08 2018 No.11226229 >>11226217 >Shipping shit all around the globe isn't "efficient" it actually is

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:54:20 2018 No.11226233 >>11226183 I'm not sure if this was the purpose of your post but thanks for proving my point. Every age thinks its economic relations as being natural in some form.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 07:55:11 2018 No.11226237 >>11226217 >Shipping shit all around the globe isn't "efficient" just because transportation and Indian child labour is cheap. it is the most efficient and central planning retardation would crash it >b-b-ut east india company it crashed and burned

Anonymous Mon May 28 07:56:12 2018 No.11226243

>>11226233
>dude wat you think you know is only natural.. but what I know is truly supreme
I'm not sure if this was the purpose of your post but thanks for proving my point. Every intelelctual thinks its economic relations as being supreme as opposed to perceived natural ones.

Anonymous Mon May 28 08:06:51 2018 No.11226291

>>11226224
Mathematical economics isn't about prediction. Only some of it can be. You are an idiot.
>>11226217
>Also even thinking in categories like collectivism and individualism identifies you as an ideologised dunce.
I don't know about the rest of your post, but this is spot on

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 08:16:07 2018 No.11226317 >>11219572 Not all marxists are in favor of central planning

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 08:17:10 2018 No.11226322 >>11219853 I laughed

Anonymous Mon May 28 08:23:42 2018 No.11226340

>>11220207
I majored in Finance and most of my professors in France were post-keynesians, all of them agreed that Hayek's critique of government intervention in times of crisis was a good point, if economic agents knew they would get loans for a reduced interest to boost economic activity, most of them would speculate in the long term with those loans in order to maximize their profits, leaving the economy crippled but with extra government deficit.
This is pretty much the only relevant criticism Hayek made, the rest is standard supply-side economics ideological rambling.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 08:29:56 2018 No.11226363 >>11226340 >Professors were post-Keynesians that agreed with Hayek no wonder we are at the predicament where we now find ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 08:44:45 2018 No.11226426 >>11226363 There is nothing wrong in acknowledging valid criticisms in your theory, something Burgerland's econ departements could learn from instead of parroting the same "the freer the market, the freer the people" rhetoric for over 40 years

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 08:48:15 2018 No.11226443 >>11226363 Hayek is reconcilable with Keynes. Mises is diametrically opposed. I don't think anyone here actually reads books, but if they did they would understand what I just typed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 09:25:32 2018 No.11226598 >>11219229 This is fallacious reasoning. A condition of serfdom can come about in more than one way.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 09:33:00 2018 No.11226624 File: 99 KB, 1200x800, RTX2DW8R-1200x800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 28 09:42:07 2018 No.11226651

>>11223326
>It's literally a collective falsehood that only has value because we decide it has value.

I reflects a certain collective subjective valuation, but that's the beauty of it. Price signals are dynamic and everything is always shifting and adjusting as subjective valuations change.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 09:51:06 2018 No.11226673 Who would want to be a serf of the state when you can become the serf of a multi national corporation?????

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 09:51:51 2018 No.11226674 >>11226673 At least the corporation has a vested interest in you, unlike state.

Anonymous Mon May 28 09:54:52 2018 No.11226683

>>11219656
>Lange
>new industries, goods and services can only be created by the government which owns all the means of productions
>price setting mechanism is literally "keep failing until you get it right"
>there is a single employer, the government, which sets all wages so you can't trade up
>your choices as a consumer are essentially "how much of X are you willing to pay to the government, out of the wage that the government pays to you"
Wow, sign me up senpai. I always wanted to live in a company town.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 09:54:56 2018 No.11226684 >>11226674 Explain

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 09:55:50 2018 No.11226690 >>11223326 >It's literally a collective falsehood that only has value because we decide it has value. yeah but you can say this about most things

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:01:49 2018 No.11226722 File: 251 KB, 2048x916, DbgLHmlW4AI0e4B.jpg:large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There's literally nothing with serfdom.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:02:52 2018 No.11226728 >>11226722 *wrong with

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:04:51 2018 No.11226734

>>11226673
The multinational have way more checks on their power, since they operate in several different legal frameworks, at times independent and at times overlapping - and then they only profit if people are willing to work for the pay they offer and buy the stuff they produce, or if the governments support them. Sovereign states, specially autharchistic states, have monopolistic reach and don't even have to provide their people with things they want to keep existing - since they can just force people to work for them and pay them.

Luckily, we don't have to live in a totalitarian system where one corporation (either private, public or state) has complete power over you.

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:07:27 2018 No.11226746

>>11226734
>He really believes multi nationals get checked by governments instead of the other way around

Lol, you colossal subhuman. Best example is Italy at the moment, they pretty much cant form a government because foreign investors and the EU refuse to accept the proposed cabinet and its ministers, a cabinet voted for by the population.

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:10:17 2018 No.11226762

>>11226734
>Luckily, we don't have to live in a totalitarian system where one corporation (either private, public or state) has complete power over you
yes, there are multiple corps that have near-total power over you through lobbying and government control

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:14:24 2018 No.11226775 >>11226762 >there are multiple corps that have near-total power over you Who and how? something something crony capitalism

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:15:20 2018 No.11226783
File: 1.78 MB, 2357x2867, Rembrandt_St._Paul_in_Prison.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11217372
Anyone else here that believes that the idea of central planning, divorced from Marxist notions, is viable and feel, so long as a hierarchy exists and controls are in place (like death penalty) to prevent people from diverting goods, it would work potentially better than the free market?
I see trinkets, cheap meaningless shit, wastefulness that abounds and [money/status/hierarchy] is often awarded because of dumb luck like someone that started a some nail salon business. I believe the economic powerhouse could be directed at bigger and better things, like a space elevator and investment into fusion power would be a better use of mankind. There also could be some objective means of evaluating intelligence and other measures of competence to ensure the best are at the top.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:16:33 2018 No.11226791 >>11226762 If that were true, then it would seem they do a better job of governing us than those oh-so-independent governments.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:17:46 2018 No.11226798 >>11226089 Samefag

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:19:41 2018 No.11226808 File: 3.52 MB, 1440x810, 1516756528041.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11219667 Burn it down

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:20:48 2018 No.11226814 >>11226783 >like death penalty) to prevent people from diverting goods lol

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:21:30 2018 No.11226815 >>11226762 >>11226746 Good, states are failed conception. Corporations are the next logical step

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:22:00 2018 No.11226819

>>11226746
>Best example is Italy at the moment, they pretty much cant form a government because foreign investors and the EU refuse to accept the proposed cabinet and its ministers, a cabinet voted for by the population.
there are people who believe this

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:22:26 2018 No.11226823

>>11220190
>sounds really crazy
It is mathematically insane. The fastest and most effective route to the disproof of everything Keynes wrote is the recognition of the fact that human action is not infinitesimal, and so in his mathematics, his use of the arbitrary delta for human action is entirely unjustifiable. There goes 100% of everything the most profound utilitarian thinker has ever contributed.

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:23:51 2018 No.11226828

>>11226783
I don't think it should be up to you, or me, or a small clique, or even a majority of the people to decide what has worth and what hasn't. It should be up to each and every person. If you want something for yourself, and you aren't hurting anybody else, I don't think people should stand in your way. I don't care for nail salons, but it is good that other people can enjoy them.

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:30:38 2018 No.11226862

>>11226823
I won't go that far. I think you CAN quantify these sorts of things IF they are the only dependent variable.

I can't tell for sure, but I think Keynes has a habit of creating less equations than independent variables. And mathematically that's a problem.

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:31:56 2018 No.11226869

>>11226746
Do you not understand how parliamentarism works? They haven't formed a government because they need a majority of votes to form an executive. There are two parties that are negotiating to form a governing coalition, and that entails them resolving their differences amongst themselves through compromises - this has been hard because the two parties are extreme opposites on several issues.

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:35:03 2018 No.11226887

>>11226869
M5S and Lega are in agreement, President wouldn't allow for Euroskeptic finance minister so the two parties that form a majority decided to draw a red line there. They offered others in his place that he would accept, Savona was literally dismissed by the Pres for political reasons.

They're gonna have new elections in August-September and Lega, M5S will just skyrocket in polls and instead of 1 euroskeptic minister they're probably gonna have lot more of them lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:38:52 2018 No.11226899 >>11226887 >President wouldn't allow for Euroskeptic finance minister Because exiting the EU wasn't part of their electoral campaign

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:41:28 2018 No.11226914 >>11226899 lmao you believe that line from him, kekkerino

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:41:45 2018 No.11226917

>>11226887
There are reasons to not take the current proposal seriously:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/14/italy-m5s-five-star-movement-league-parties-name-prime-minister
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/17/italys-m5s-and-league-parties-poised-to-sign-government-deal

Also, if the prez didn't veto this shit he wouldn't be doing his job:
http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2018/05/17/factbox-m5s-league-govt-contract-key-points_b84a7c6e-121a-49e7-b6c2-50e9423db5b9.html

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:45:24 2018 No.11226933

>>11226917
>It wasn't in the programs guys.
Yeah nobody knew these guys were euroskeptics, ok if we buy this shill line whatever -
irregardless - the President made Lega victim and they were skyrocketing before this in polls. If there are new elections they will come up with even higher support than they had. And it's not gonna be just 1 euroskeptic minister. It will be ten and then some.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:46:15 2018 No.11226938 File: 75 KB, 415x325, Untitled-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11226798 not that desperate

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:46:58 2018 No.11226940 >when you realise that all discussions about economics are by humanities majors who dropped economics 101 while complaining that their professor was "neoliberal"

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 10:49:38 2018 No.11226957 >>11226823 >human action isn't infinitesimal which disproves keynes >but a system based on constant growth into infinity is perfectly fine

Anonymous Mon May 28 10:50:58 2018 No.11226964
File: 257 KB, 500x373, 1521285865118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11226940
lol i didn't even get into university to become a humanities major, too dumb for that shit to get in, tried 8 years.

and now i'm ranting about private property memes

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:03:16 2018 No.11227020

>>11226957
Are you retarded? Have you ever taken any mathematics class? Infinite series can be constructed using non-continuous steps, such as the natural numbers on the universe of the reals. You do not need infinitesimal steps to trend towards infinity, but if the smallest form of continuation is something like a piecewise integer step, then you cannot use infinitesimals to describe the function in an accurate way. In order to do so, you would have to break each step into perfectly identical portions downwards into infinity similar to a Riemann Sum approximation of an integer. The smallest step of human action is a singular action. There are no sub actions. Breaking actions into subcomponents would only yield an understanding of the smallest steps because you cannot describe 0.899 of a human action in a meaningful way.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:05:17 2018 No.11227025 >>11227020 I wish I could understand this but I'm dumb white trash cattle

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:06:12 2018 No.11227029 >>11227020 Sorry, Reimann Sum approximation of an integral*

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:11:22 2018 No.11227050

>>11227025
These are just simple calculus ideas, which I've found in my own experience (just graduated with a mathematics degree) are very simple to grasp if you have a decent foundation in algebraic thinking. If you're a USA citizen though, you were probably robbed of that ability thanks to the socialized structure of our education and the integration of central planner controls which minimizes educator autonomy and thus hinders in students the development of those critical thinking skills required to get that intuitive grasp of algebra and therefore calculus.
Check out Khan Academy if you're interested in acquiring a firm understanding of this stuff.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:12:38 2018 No.11227057 >>11227050 Khan Academy is legit?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:13:54 2018 No.11227064 >>11226938 what do you think this proves?

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:14:37 2018 No.11227068

>>11227057
Oh yes, especially for mathematics. I used Khan Academy in my Sophmore year to pass Trigonometry. I was a shit student then and hadn't studied or done my homework for the majority of the semester and I used Khan Academy to learn all the material in a couple weeks so I could pass the class. Fantastic website imo

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:17:37 2018 No.11227075 File: 113 KB, 2048x947, 1522028416739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11227068 A genuine thank you for the recommendation and I will begin journey of fixing-my-maths with it. It's gonna be a rocky ride.

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:20:01 2018 No.11227084

>>11227075
Of course! Always happy to help spread the interest in mathematics. Good luck fixing the catastrophe that public education set you up with. If it wasn't so time-consuming I would genuinely recommend throwing away everything you learned and reintegrating the information through independent study.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:26:31 2018 No.11227097 >>11219667 >mises >praxeology And you call yourself rational when you meddle with this black magic?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:27:45 2018 No.11227101 >>11225236 You dumbo. Think of these mega conglomerates such as Unilever, Kraft, Procter & Gamble etc.. All of them have central planning principles in the corporate hierarchy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:28:00 2018 No.11227103 >>11227097 takes black magikian to know a black magikian

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:29:01 2018 No.11227106 >>11227101 So lets just allow Jeff Bezos to buy USA, I agree. He could probably run it economically better than the bought and paid for politicians.

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:31:52 2018 No.11227114

>>11227097
>And you call yourself rational when you meddle with this black magic?

Methodological individualism struck me as arcane at first too, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. Cities are organic. They come about and are maintained through the actions of individuals. A complex system emerges. Understanding economics means understanding why and how humans make choices.

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:35:28 2018 No.11227129

>>11227097
How is praxeology black magic? The idea that we make subjective evaluations to rank our perceived actionable options has roots going far back philosophically. The idea survived even Kant's obliteration of regarded philosophy in the 1780s. Even in modern days we are finding more and more empirical evidence to support the idea of praxeology through our understanding of bird flight patterns, and how they are emergent phenomenon rather than ingrained phenomenon. Birds flock together because their nature predisposes them towards behaving in ways which manifest the flock, just like human nature causes common behavior to manifest, such as in the formation of a line, a family, a city, and a social order.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:37:10 2018 No.11227138 >>11227129 Emergent phenomenons have fucked with my mind for more than 2 years now. I can't tell if it says anything or if it says everything, jej. >the downsides of being 85IQ

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:39:34 2018 No.11227151 >>11226080 >no respectable Marxist has believed I dialectal materialism They are not marxists then, because dialectal materialism IS marxism. the rest is just applications of diamat.

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:44:09 2018 No.11227167

>>11227138
It speaks volumes regarding the uniformity of the structure of the human brain. What manifests in emergent phenomenon has roots far deeper than the structures thought to be responsible for our consciousness. In terms of praxeology, you can think of emergent phenomenon being that kind of behavior which makes so much sense to us that it is almost always chosen in our subjective evaluations of our options for immediate action. There is a major subconscious impetus to behave in a particular way due to our nature. That we behave this way with such uniformity suggests that the behavior is rooted in systems that have been embedded within our biology for a very long time so that it is no longer at the cutting edge of biological development. We still choose these behaviors, however, the choice is informed heavily by systems we have no conscious cognition or control over.

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:46:35 2018 No.11227179

>>11227167
>>It speaks volumes regarding the uniformity of the structure of the human brain. What manifests in emergent phenomenon has roots far deeper than the structures thought to be responsible for our consciousness
Have you read Metzinger? He is the first that implanted this idea in my head. Sounds similar.

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:51:30 2018 No.11227192

>>11227179
I haven't, no. This particular understanding is a product of studying Kant, anarcho capitalism (and thus necessarily praxeology), Jung, and disparate modern neurological articles regarding breakthroughs in our understanding of emergent phenomenon in simpler animals than us.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:52:54 2018 No.11227201 >>11227192 You might dig him then, but sounds like you already know what he writes about so I don't know how much he can offer to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:55:19 2018 No.11227214 >>11227201 I'll definitely check him out when I can finally break away from my central reading list. Any particular books of his you would recommend for me to add to my reading list?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 11:57:57 2018 No.11227223 >>11227064 that there wasn't any samefagging or do you think I edited out a (You) in photoshop

Anonymous Mon May 28 11:59:40 2018 No.11227235
File: 1.03 MB, 1892x1601, 1523464222167.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11227214
He only has 4 in English I guess. I've read Ego Tunnel & Being None. I loved both. They were miserable at first, the most depressing things I've read as it introduced me to emergent phenomena and it was contrary to what I had believed, but I think they really helped me understand the world a lot more.

Then I found Mises thru some random connection and it kind of clicked to what I had just read from Metzinger and I was completely gone, chugged down him, Rothbard and Hoppe in about 1,5 month or so.

Do you have Goodreads? What are your favorite an-cap books/thinkers?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:04:32 2018 No.11227252 >>11227101 What are those principles?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:06:56 2018 No.11227255 >>11223602 we live in a society

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:08:16 2018 No.11227261 >>11225941 you literally didn't read the book, retard

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:11:12 2018 No.11227273 >>11226099 >le cost of production theory fuck off ricardo-marx

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:14:31 2018 No.11227284 >>11226217 are you a fucking child? just define efficiency based on the net amount of utility gained by the constituents of a system of production / distribution. efficiency is easy as hell to define.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:16:14 2018 No.11227292

>>11227284
>define efficiency based on the net amount of utility gained by the constituents of a system of production / distribution

is it the gain of the utility
or the utility of the gain

value added or value of addition

reall gets me htinking hmm

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:16:55 2018 No.11227296 >>11227255 "Society" itself wouldn't work because tribes in the Amazon live in the societies and they don't have to worry about economies. I'm talking about a specific type of society. A civilization or if you want to be pedantic a civilized society.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:16:58 2018 No.11227298

>>11227235
I don't have goodreads, no. I'll add both of those to my reading list, thanks for the suggestions! I also blew through the ancap literature, though I actually haven't read Mises myself. I know much of Mises' theory through Rothbard and Hoppe, the many conversations I've had about it, and some minor independent study, such as into the iron law of oligarchy. I'd have to say that Rothbard is my favorite ancap thinker. Hoppe is amazing, but I've always been a fan of philosophy and ethics. Hoppe is geared more towards the actualization of that philosophy and ethical system, and reading his work prepares you more and more for that goal. The Ethics of Liberty, however, was a book that floored me for weeks while I was reading it. I perceived everything differently after reading that. It was like I finally became aware of the "secret" that is what all of Western civilization has been based upon, so I have a huge soft spot for the guy because of that.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:17:14 2018 No.11227304 >>11226426 lol what?? "burgerland" econ dept.s have been demand side, orthodox keynesianism for decades now.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:18:17 2018 No.11227307 >>11226673 imagine having not read the book this hard

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:19:37 2018 No.11227312 >>11226673 Are corporations basically the Jews of the left?

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:21:03 2018 No.11227320

>>11227298
Only thing i haven't gotten satisfying answer from Hoppe is who owns the baby once it's out in the oven?

and he has very, very rosy view of what a non-state life would be like, I imagine this is influence from his early leftist leanings or just aspect of trying to sell his view; and I don't buy his arguments for defense of small city-states/corps against large state organization, I just don't see it at all.

but, I liked him overall.
I should hit upon their critique for any blindspots I might've missed.

Rothbard is my favorite too.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:30:50 2018 No.11227350

>>11227320
Child ethics I think should be culturally defined rather than through the property ethic. I've studied the property ethic for a few years now, and the question of children (abortion, ownership, etc.) has come up many times. I don't think we yet have the tools (and potentially, we may never have the tools) required to, from a purely rational perspective, assign ethical claims to how children should be handled. The problem with children in the property ethic is the concern of when, how, and why the nature of man manifests within people. We do not yet have a firm grasp of this, and I believe that we may never have a firm grasp of this as it involves transcendental (i.e. is involving the fundamental a priori conditions for human knowledge) concepts that we cannot perceive beyond their influence upon our perception. Our consciousness is an aspect of our nature which we have no firm grasp upon yet, and necessarily if we remove our consciousness (one of the conditions for perception) then we do not have human nature. So when does this manifest within children? What about a perception of time, space, causality, etc? It's really hard to say for now, so any kind of question about ownership or rights regarding children is murky as they exist in a state that may or may not have the qualities required to manifest the human nature that all of the property ethic is founded upon.
Also his views regarding the natural order are idealistic, sure, yet they are not without warrant. What he describes is certainly a potential manifestation of a natural order society. Any particular description of a natural order society implies that we know exactly how our emergent behavior works, which we don't. We have general principles which prove that it is the best way forward, however, we cannnot say with certainty what it will exactly look like. We can definitely show you many potential ways, in order to elucidate that it is actually possible and preferable to what we have now, though. That is the point of an anarcho capitalist philosopher or adherent trying to describe how the society might look if we oriented ourselves with our natural law.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:34:36 2018 No.11227364

>>11227350
>>Child ethics I think should be culturally defined rather than through the property ethic
I agree, and Hoppe does put a lot of pressure on overall culture where his philosophy of economics can even foster, but it's a really (dangerously) funny game of trying to apply the property ideas to children in economic argumentation, I really like putting the arguments proposed on the most retarded bench mark to see where we end up.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:36:02 2018 No.11227370 >>11227364 >>11227350 >>11227320 this isn't the pedophile general

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:36:54 2018 No.11227375 >>11227370 go away then

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:37:10 2018 No.11227376 File: 88 KB, 1280x720, 1497358772569.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11227370 >this isn't the pedophile general And that's because we physically removed them

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:44:52 2018 No.11227403

>>11227364
That's one of the better tools of the skeptics, however, I would advise against using it in any other measure except to determine potential bounds for the thoughts considered. I don't think it is fair to "refute" an argument through the generation of some kind of extreme example. The only kinds of arguments that works on, from a mathematics perspective, are the kinds which declare a unique answer to a universal concern. For instance, you can refute the Action Axiom by creating a singular real example of a human that is alive and functioning that does not act. The action axiom provides a unique answer to a universal consideration.
An ethical system, however, does not fall into this situation. An ethical system is something derived in order to better facilitate social interaction and define a logical system of right and wrong. Sort of presupposed in the consideration of any ethical system is the clause "If you wish to have a civilized society, then..." Lifeboat scenarios don't refute an ethical system, they exist on the fringes of what we can perceive regarding that ethical system. That has little bearing on the ethical system unless it is for something so central to us that it must be answered, such as if theft is okay or not.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:48:02 2018 No.11227418

>>11227320
>Rothbard is my favorite too.

To my mind, Rothbard is the ideal jumping-off point. His breadth and charming accessibility are prodigious, but once you start getting to know the facets of the Austrian School, it behooves you to branch off into other authors as your preferences dictate.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:49:04 2018 No.11227421

>>11227298
>Hoppe is geared more towards the actualization of that philosophy and ethical system

They all have their strengths.

Hoppe shows us a way forward with his visions of incremental fragmentary secession coupled with competing security agencies.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:50:22 2018 No.11227429 >>11227421 No doubt, I love Hoppe like I said. I'm just personally more geared towards philosophy and ethics than I am strategy. I recognize the importance of strategy, but I do not have the same kind of interest in it.

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:51:36 2018 No.11227434
File: 662 KB, 1434x1444, 1498579788623.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11227418
I haven't branched into other Austrians School economists yet, unless this guy counts. Just read the 'big three' if I may call them such, at least in context of 4chan (mises, roth, hoppe)

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:53:19 2018 No.11227444

>>11227421
>coupled with competing security agencies.
Hoppe couldn't convince me about this and none has.
They build up a democratic state such power in warfare that it can't be competed against and then propose competing against it.

If you have any literature to convince me, please share.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:57:08 2018 No.11227452 >>11227434 the REAL big three is hayek, bawerk, and menger. please don't get the idea that the nap ancap praxx crew is relevant or taken seriously outside of the internet at all. the only austrians you need to read are the aforementioned ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:57:39 2018 No.11227455 >>11227452 I specified in context of 4chan :)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 12:59:47 2018 No.11227461 >>11227455 why would you waste your time w/ mises et al. at all?

Anonymous Mon May 28 12:59:54 2018 No.11227462
File: 682 KB, 2426x2676, 1515956875406.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11227434
Check out this list if you want any suggestings from the ancap crowd. Also, if you're interested in talking about any more of this stuff (mathematics, ancap, philosophy, ethics, w/e) that we've been talking about then you should join our discord group, /lrg/ (Libertarian Right General)
fnmp99D is the invite code. I'm Lucid on there
The book list here isn't agreed upon by everyone of course, some people think it's a bit too bloated for some topics but it is a good place to start.

>>11227444
Well the idea that a private security firm would grow to such a size that it would be unstoppable in conquering a region implies that they acquired large amounts of revenue through voluntary exchange for so long that they eclipsed their competition. It implies that people wouldn't be looking out for that kind of thing, and it implies that the organization would divert profit from further development or overhead in such a way that they could fund the overthrow of a whole society. Not only that, but it implies that there can't be any meaningful competition that would recognize the threat upon manifestation of a State-like entity and that they wouldn't band together with other competitors to prevent such a thing and secure their market shares in the regions.
There's a lot more to it than just this, but these are some intuitive ideas as to why such a thing wouldn't happen upon manifestation of a libertarian social order.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:00:40 2018 No.11227466 >>11227461 They humor me and massage my autism nodules.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:01:56 2018 No.11227471 >>11227466 w/e pleases you, i guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:03:30 2018 No.11227479 >>11227462 Why Discord when it's such insecure service compared to Telegram or any IRC alternative?

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:06:58 2018 No.11227489

>>11227479
Because that was what the community was originally created on, unfortunately. I much prefer IRC myself, why fix what isn't broken imo. I wonder if there are any discord bots that can forward discord posts to IRC, that would be a fantastic bridge

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:11:11 2018 No.11227504 File: 5 KB, 236x236, eastindiacompany.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11227462 >Well the idea that a private security firm would grow to such a size that it would be unstoppable in conquering a region

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:12:09 2018 No.11227508 >>11227504 >EIC >private. not even Nick Land agrees with you

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:14:54 2018 No.11227519

>>11227114
>Cities are organic. They come about and are maintained through the actions of individuals
I don't believe that any economist alive would agree with you. Terribly sophomoric post everyone.

This isn't against Keynes, Fisher, etc. at all.

>>11227129
I think it's black magic because it somehow convinces people that not doing anything with their money, i.e. putting it in a bank, is actually investing their money. Which is ridiculous considering that is absolutely not the case, they are just contributing towards inflation.

To be honest with you, there are many mathematical economists whose systems are EXACTLY the principle you've just described. I would wish that people would investigate economics a bit more, they'd find that the Lausanne school is what they're looking for on this site.

Walras, Pareto... the list could go on.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:15:39 2018 No.11227524

>>11227508
Nick Land is talking shit then. It was a joint-stock company formed by private capital. sure it was granted a monopoly by the state but that's independent of the fact it was a private actor whose interests happen to align with those of the state thus beginning a mutually beneficial relationship

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:16:22 2018 No.11227527

>>11226147
>>11226126
>>11226117
Finally some real Argumentation on this board.
I work in city planning and would like to add a point or two.

Back in the 70s City planners used to plan a fucking lot here in europe. Most plans were meant for the next 30-40 years. It’s was essentially central planing and I’m not talking only about cities but whole regions aswell.
Then the oil crisis broke all those plans. The new planning philosophy is about planning small single steps and looking how each one works out and then adjust from there. Basically a limited planning.

Still from my point of view, I do not get how one can want the economy to work without state or central planning. Imagine your huge city centre of a mid sized town with all its retailers and stores. Since no one is planning shit it’s no problem for investors to build huge fucking malls outside the city. Since malls are typically cheaper all business will move there in the worst case. All housing will follow the new found centre of a non city. Your City Centre basically dies out and huge deserts of empty or ghetto like houses are left in the centres.

That’s basically how the US is right now and Britain moves there as well. Sure you can say „no one forces anyone to anything muh free enterprise“. Still all your city’s will eventually go to shit and look like fucking South Africa in a couple of years.
>wait that’s Nottingham or Richmond already.

Central planning will fail but limited planning by a limited government is absolutely needed in my opinion.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:16:32 2018 No.11227532

>>11227273
The cost of the productive elements together with the level of competition for the production in the hands of the producer/workers determines the price.

I honestly do not see how you can argue otherwise. If you can, please state your argument thus, I would love to see it. Lets get this discussion rolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:16:51 2018 No.11227533 >>11227524 He said it's cooperation/joint operation of nation and private firm and think's its the reason China is going to be economic successor because they got beaten by it and learned from it.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:18:08 2018 No.11227537

>>11227292
He didn't respond to you because you're a horrible troll
>>11227284
This is one of the best posts on economics I've seen on here in recent years. Exactly correct in my opinion, and to be honest with you this post in general gets to the point of why it is so important to study utility mathematically in the first place: it is beneficial to society.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:19:31 2018 No.11227541 >>11227532 >The cost of the productive elements together with the level of competition for the production in the hands of the producer/workers determines the price. Alright consumers don't exist, what is going on in this model? Absolutely NOT.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:19:35 2018 No.11227542 >>11227519 Would disagree with you, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:19:40 2018 No.11227544 >>11227533 I see - in that case, I agree completely

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:21:55 2018 No.11227554

>>11227429
>I'm just personally more geared towards philosophy and ethics

I find Rothbard very agreeable on this point since he tries to link ethical norms to human reason. This can be contrasted with Mises who was more of a utilitarian. You could gravitate towards one or the other depending on your inclinations.

That's what I find fun. Once you've explored the common ground they all share, you start seeing points of divergence. From here on, you side with one thinker on one issue and with another on another. It all starts to crystallize into a distinct personal interpretation of the greater school.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:22:15 2018 No.11227556

>>11227541
>Alright consumers don't exist, what is going on in this model?
With regards to the price? Prove to me that consumers matter when you set the price please. I would like to see why you dogmatically make this assertion.

Keynes was right, the demand doesn't match the supply price at all times. He didn't go FAR ENOUGH. The demand simply has no correlation to the supply price at ALL. The demand is its own separate sociological entity. Prove to me it's possible to even create demand from selling something.

I'm waiting.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:24:04 2018 No.11227564 >>11227434 I've mostly stuck to the big three too, but as I start to dig into catallaxy, time preference, market signals, and other such things, my attention turns to other thinkers who elaborate on or sharpen ideas found in more foundational texts.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:26:58 2018 No.11227577 >>11227564 Such as

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:27:11 2018 No.11227578

>>11227519
How does praxeology in any way inform that position? How do you get from "everyone makes subjective evaluations to determine their next action" to what you described? Praxeology has nothing to do with that, and there is no such thing as "doing nothing with your money". Money is always mobile because of inflation and deflation, and the consideration for more or less efficient modes of holding is something that an educated person regards with importance.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:27:19 2018 No.11227579 File: 27 KB, 343x518, propaganda-edward-bernays-1928-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11227556 pic related can create demand but it's still not solely because of the existence of supply but through mental manipulation

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:28:01 2018 No.11227583

>>11227452
OH THIS FUCKING POST JUST WENT THERE

You had to say it.

Daily reminder that Mises and Rothbard don't understand indifference curves.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Seriously, if you know ANYTHING about indifference curves this is a hilarious read.

Carl Menger, on the other hand, is praised by Leon Walras. His findings are on the same line as Walras, but obviously not as in depth because he didn't utilize any sort of mathematical system.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:29:27 2018 No.11227591 >>11227583 >>11227583 >Carl Menger the nazi torturer?

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:30:09 2018 No.11227593

>>11227578
>"everyone makes subjective evaluations to determine their next action"
That's not what Praxeology is, otherwise Praxeology is called 'common sense'. There is not an economist alive that would disagree with that.

I'm primarily going off of Mises' views here, who was the one that started Praxeology. His views on the national subsistence fund and production cycles in general is completely the opposite of Keynes', who I believe had the general idea.

The guy is wrong on several different levels. Worst Austrian. Go Menger or go home.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:31:16 2018 No.11227598 >>11227591 No?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:32:17 2018 No.11227605 >>11227579 In which case, then, it's a matter of who owns the means of production, which is what I mentioned before. Glad we're in agreement here.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:32:20 2018 No.11227606 >>11227598 oh I mixed up Mengele and Menger

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:32:21 2018 No.11227607 >>11227591 That was Mengele

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:35:30 2018 No.11227624
File: 609 KB, 1262x916, 1513282745419.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Explain to me how economy is science when it can't be predictive and there are about as many explanations for event as there are explainers. And they just don't seem to get it right.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:38:14 2018 No.11227635 >>11226674 >At least the corporation has a vested interest in you, unlike state. ahahahahaha, wow. The literal inverse is true

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:38:25 2018 No.11227637 Socialism doesn't work. Free market capitalism works.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:38:42 2018 No.11227640

>>11227624
Just shut the fuck up. You are the same motherfucker saying the same shit over and over. Doesn't it get boring?

Just.

Shut.

The.

Fuck.

Up.

Economics isn't even inherently predictive. It's not supposed to make predictions.

I remember like a year ago I started posting on this board about Irving Fisher. How he could reliably predict the interest rate movements (which he can). But then ever since then I think I grazed a few philosophy majors the wrong way and this one in particular decided to follow economic threads around all day and parade in them saying you can't predict economic activity blah blah blah.

Listen fuckwit, that is the objective of like .00000000001% of economics, okay? You are seriously braindead and retarded.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:39:00 2018 No.11227643

>>11227593
Ahh then we aren't disagreeing here. Praxeology is simply the investigation of human action. I haven't delved much into the economics of libertarianism, as I said earlier I'm much more a fan of philosophy and ethics, which I believe Rothbard fantastically explores. Mises has had some solid contributions on that front at least, such as the Iron Law of Oligarchy and the Action Axiom which I've spoken of a couple times now.
Also, Mises was by no means the first to use or start praxeology. That's been around for a very long time.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:39:07 2018 No.11227644 >>11227635 State can always breed more thru women. Corporation cant.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:40:17 2018 No.11227651 >>11227643 Haha, he's a shit economist, bud. Trust me, Mises is the only economist I know of that is proven wrong. That is very embarrassing for an economist.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:40:39 2018 No.11227652 >>11227640 What is the point of it then? Just storytelling? >>11227651 >Mises is the only economist I know of that is proven wrong Karl Marx!

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:42:05 2018 No.11227660

>>11227527

>Imagine your huge city centre of a mid sized town with all its retailers and stores. Since no one is planning shit it’s no problem for investors to build huge fucking malls outside the city. Since malls are typically cheaper all business will move there in the worst case.

I think incentives and subsidies need to be given due consideration. New development on the city periphery often require massive infrastructure spending which the city undertakes on behalf of these malls. Would new malls be built outside the city core if streets, sewers, and electric power weren't all given free of charge?

Or perhaps I am misinformed in these things?

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:42:37 2018 No.11227661

>>11227624
they use math formulas and have equations
economics should be looked at like evopsych or dream interpretation but the presence of formulas and calculus makes it seem sciencey to the general public and coupled with its unending possibility for contortion into any shape the people with money require makes it perfect for selling shit to the people and making it seem like gold
bernays' propaganda raised the game to an even higher level

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:42:39 2018 No.11227663

>>11227652
>Karl Marx!
Fair point.

The point of economics is to provide a means to create better economic systems. You can see overall there is a problem with consumption, resource control, population, overall economic utility enjoyed by members of the population, employment, etc.

All of these issues are real, tangible, and have been, and will be, solved by economics.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:44:14 2018 No.11227672

>>11227663
>>The point of economics is to provide a means to create better economic systems
What how can you even begin to do this when you cannot be predictive in the slightest, how do you make a better world when you can't even guess the intended consequences of action let alone the unintended and indirect ones

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:44:39 2018 No.11227673 >>11227462 Thank you for posting this.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:45:41 2018 No.11227675

>>11227651
Sure, I can't really comment regarding his economic contributions, though would you say that his ethical and philosophical contributions are also debunked? If so, who would I have to study to see this? I've been trying to debunk anarcho capitalism for some time now on my own through debate and study so any help is greatly appreciated.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:45:51 2018 No.11227676

>>11227672
The question isn't 'how can', it's 'how have they'. The answer is in the works themselves. Keynesian policies have benefited many countries short-term. Exchange is a complex beast. Just read economics books and you can figure out how they have impacted society. Read The General Theory for instance.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:46:02 2018 No.11227677 File: 25 KB, 400x300, 7237544b533ca9475f9b5f00-750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11227663 >All of these issues >have been, and will be, solved by economics.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:46:47 2018 No.11227684 >>11227675 >Philosophy major I'm done. Come back when you're willing to learn a bit of math so you can understand economic principles.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:46:56 2018 No.11227685 >>11227676 They also resulted into imploding EU, so, huh, apple cart.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:48:20 2018 No.11227692 >>11227684 >implying I'm a philosophy major I graduated last Saturday with a bachelors in mathematics, actually. I have a great interest in philosophy, which I use mathematics to inform.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:48:33 2018 No.11227695 >>11227677 more like >by scientists through new life changing improvements and innovations. Later, economists will describe these changes as the changes brought by their theories.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:49:13 2018 No.11227701 >>11227652 >Karl Marx! Doesn't count since his definitions are all abstractions of abstractions so proving him right or wrong is fundamentally impossible.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:49:47 2018 No.11227705 >>11227692 Ah very cool. So go read Walras and Pareto in that order please. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:51:29 2018 No.11227715 >>11227577 Frank Fetter is good on matters of time. Hayek has clarified things for me in matters of market signals.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:53:32 2018 No.11227734
File: 884 KB, 2059x3089, 1524497558514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Like the other Late Scholastics, he agreed that goods are not valued “according to their nobility or perfection” but according “to their ability to serve human utility.” But he provided this compelling example. Rats, according to their nature, are more “noble” (higher up the hierarchy of Creation) than wheat. But rats “are not esteemed or appreciated by men” because “they are of no utility whatsoever.”

That feel when no good recent edition of the Salamanca School.

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:54:15 2018 No.11227740

>>11227705
Sure thing, but once again does this debunk his ethical and philosophical contributions? I have plans on studying economics after I finish studying Kant, would these two be good for someone with a beginner/intermediate level of economic knowledge? I've taken micro and macro economics during my university program and it was cheese, though I have no way of guaging if those were good introductions or not

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:55:05 2018 No.11227748 >>11227556 what is supplier induced demand for 500 please tom

Anonymous Mon May 28 13:58:29 2018 No.11227763

>>11227740
>would these two be good for someone with a beginner/intermediate level of economic knowledge?

Hm. Yes.

Walras' Elements of Pure Economics is considered a hidden holy grail by many, including me. It forms your mind into a calculated, pure economics machine.

The objective of the book is literally to help you think more scientifically about economic issues. Everything is analyzed as a phenomenon of market activity (as it really should be). The reason I suggest it, is because it's required to have a fair amount of mathematics to understand. You may not technically ENJOY it the whole way through, but I'm glad I read it. It was written in the late 19th century and surpasses almost all reasonable economic work on the angle he analyzed it from since then. Beautiful work.

The only thing I've read by Mises was his Theory of Money book. That might be the problem here. Although that was enough for me. He had some kind of polemic against 'the left' at the end of the book and I tuned out.

Not because I sympathize with the left (ofc) but because I don't see the need to launch into a political polemic at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:59:10 2018 No.11227766 >>11227748 A farce. The demand was already there to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 14:04:27 2018 No.11227790 >>11226783 Sounds like you thought your way into fascism senpai

Anonymous Mon May 28 14:10:59 2018 No.11227821

>>11227763
Yeah, I did notice that with Mises. Rothbard I think had a much better approach to the consideration of politics, but that's for another conversation. Mainly I only care about his Iron Law of Oligarchy and the Action Axiom. Without those a lot of the arguments I've made in the past need to be rethought, so if they are faulty on those grounds I'd love to know as soon as possible so I can begin the reconstruction process.
I'll definitely check out Walras now that you describe him that way. I love having frameworks of thought to consider things from and I've known I've been lacking the economics angle in a meaningful way for some time now.

Anonymous Mon May 28 15:05:23 2018 No.11228051

>>11227660
I can’t tell how the US is handling that. In most european States the city builds the roads and infrastructure that does not belong directly to the mall but charges the investors for it. I never heard that a city actually gave away free streets to big projects like malls and stuff. It’s possible if there is the political will to do it, but that usually ever happens to high density housing or something like that.

Most investors plan their malls around infrastructure hubs or accessible highways or something in the like of that. Few Investors would invest if the location isn’t already a big hot spot for commuters. The city does not get involved in it usually.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 15:06:42 2018 No.11228056 >>11228051 Thank you for the clarification.

Anonymous Mon May 28 15:12:33 2018 No.11228086

>>11228056
If you have further interesst in that potic i recommend these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgJt4sArUHI&t=1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bedjbppkrxQ (it's a little edgy in its theme but it does a great job of showing why central planning in needed)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 15:44:02 2018 No.11228284 >>11226783 the only way to achieve that is to eliminate greed, personal profit, a class of exploiters. i.e. communism. there is nohing scary in marxism. and your negative image of it is based on propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 15:48:24 2018 No.11228311 >>11228284 >there is nohing scary in marxism. and your negative image of it is based on propaganda. lol we used to bully communist countries by airing ads of fat salesmen talking abou

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 15:49:40 2018 No.11228326 >>11228284 >there is nohing scary in marxism. and your negative image of it is based on propaganda. lol we used to bully communist countries by broadcasting ads of fat salesmen talking about meat and beefs

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 16:07:50 2018 No.11228439 >>11228284 Tell that to the millions of dead souls buried in every nation that overthrew their system for „only bad because of capitalist propaganda“ marxism.

Anonymous Mon May 28 17:21:42 2018 No.11228961

>>11227296
They deal with scarcity still. Men fight and trade for women and, occasionally and usually to a lesser extent, the reverse occurs as well (there are some amazonian cultures that practice both polyandry and polygeny, as the scarcity of either sex relative to the other varies greatly).

It is just that expansive foraging doesn't sustain large economies and, thusly, neither large societies.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:02:21 2018 No.11229175 >>11227223 Not photoshop, it literally takes like 15 seconds to edit the source text.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:13:04 2018 No.11229249 >>11226722 lol

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:27:05 2018 No.11229342 >>11221308 Depends how you define 'central'; if by that you mean localised and democratic, then sure.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:27:39 2018 No.11229349 >>11227651 > Mises is the only economist I know of that is proven wrong How?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:32:11 2018 No.11229375 File: 461 KB, 1147x645, towards a new socialism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11217372 Despook yourself again by reading some actual economics

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:54:01 2018 No.11229500 >>11229342 You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 19:02:54 2018 No.11229541 >>11229175 dear lord why are you such a fucking nut if I was samefagging, there wouldn't be just one guy commending me, there'd be 3 or 4 other keks with half an hour-hour between posts to make it seem less suspicious

Anonymous Mon May 28 19:45:08 2018 No.11229754
File: 40 KB, 424x512, hayek-color.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He's right and worse, we're domesticated and fully enslaved without even realizing it now.

I can't stand the character assassination Hayek gets, especially from spastic marxists calling him the god of the Neo-Liberal boogeyman.

He was a beautiful mind and wrote extremely important works in a way that was flawed for people looking for extremely rigorous and uncompromising rhetoric and logic. This main fucking played with ideas while writing in way that allows the reader to go through and play with ideas at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 19:53:43 2018 No.11229790 >>11229375 >DUDE SUPERCOMPUTERS SHOULD RUN THE ECONOMY LMAO

Anonymous Mon May 28 19:54:49 2018 No.11229793
File: 18 KB, 233x301, denationalization-of-money-Hayek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This fucking thing. Pic related is just....fucking...you know when you read something and it's not just a penny dropping but like a casino machine going off and a flood of coins pour out onto the floor? I have no words I'm sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 19:59:51 2018 No.11229817 >>11227624 macro no good

Anonymous Mon May 28 20:14:15 2018 No.11229886

>>11229754
yeah. hayek and tocqueville were right about bureaucracy and planning, but it's too late. we went down the road to serfdom, and didn't stop our progression in time. individual liberty is dead, given the expansion to western (esp. US) government powers that took place from the latter half of the 20th century to 9/11, but even more lamentably, the very desire in the population of western countries to defend their individual freedoms and any regard for the maintenance of these freedoms is also dead. it's like no one cares. outside of maybe the US south, to you'll never hear a principled defense of freedom, nor any recognition of the interconnected nature of political, social, economic, etc. liberalism. the democratic socialism that enamored the intelligentsia during hayek's time is back (DSA, corbyn, millennial new-new-left), the "old whigs" hayek considered himself a part of aren't relevant politically, and everything has become sterile and bureaucratic and planned. spain, italy, greece etc. all fell to bureaucracy and suffered accordingly. even the way we talk is bureaucratic– our language for mediating on desire, love, sex, politics, the environment, media, culture, humanity, our inward emotions, etc. is plastic and docile, like what tocqueville talked about. it's like designed to assume the removal of human agency, authenticity, or will. the pseudo-keynesian military-industrial regulatory debt state of the 21st century has to be one of the most depressing historical objects in our time. shits saddening man.

Anonymous Mon May 28 20:18:51 2018 No.11229904

>>11229886
>you'll never hear a principled defense of freedom
It seems like the least important value these days doesn't it? People will go on about their selfish greedy buzzwords, but taking a principled stand and drawing a line of what is too far? Nah. A few head nods when digital government spying is raised about "privacy" but no one gives a shit.

The big question is, let's say these guys were right. Let's say history proves them right and things get worse. No one has ever successfully wound back a managerial nanny state. To decouple the leech from the people and to decentralize using democracy hasn't really been done yet has it?

I wonder why millenial marxist kids defend the government control of their lives so much compared to the original communist vision.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:21:11 2018 No.11229915 I've read it and it is basically the manual for the retarded reactionary.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:23:53 2018 No.11229935 >>11229915 you havent read a book in ur life lol & being a reactionary is good

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:24:26 2018 No.11229939 >>11229915 > The Road to Serfdom is the manual for the retarded reactionary Liberalism is reactionary now?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:27:00 2018 No.11229947 >>11226624 I'd giver her a berning sensation if you catch my drift.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:31:33 2018 No.11229967 File: 126 KB, 617x532, smug doubt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11226783 >literally making the argument that the book in OP's post explicitly refutes.

Anonymous Mon May 28 20:31:36 2018 No.11229969

>>11229904
it's wild how much the anti surveillance stuff revealed itself to be issue-of-the-week transient shit. around the end of obama's 2nd term (i'd place the end of widespread concern for privacy somewhere around 2014 or early 15) people's attention just got simultaneously all at once divert. the (cultural) anglo saxon thirst for liberty that's existed since the enlightenment has waned. reading tRtS or Democracy in America reveals just how scarily prescient they are (given you take the time to historicize their observations and compare them to the current day) and i recommend a reread of both.

Anonymous Mon May 28 20:45:58 2018 No.11230059

>>11229969
What ever happened to the whole gov wanting back doors to Apples Iphones and Android phones and shit? I remember McAfee going on about it alot and then Crypto shot off and I haven't heard a peep since.

Even though we know they already monitor everything, the unlimited access backdoor was fucked but its all forgotten.

We're domesticated animals with increasingly shorter attentions spans aren't we? I've never read Democracy in America. It sounds like a primary source look at political historic development of Democracy as a trend is that right?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:47:26 2018 No.11230066 >>11230059 fuck off with your water cooler shit faggot, go to /pol/ or /int/ if you want to simulate normalfag officecuck speak. die

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:49:27 2018 No.11230075 >>11230066 a-are u ok anon

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:50:50 2018 No.11230078 >>11230066 I want to talk about some books and the implications of the literature ITT leads us to these kinds of current event discussions. I will die one day, as will you my friend. please calm down, I'm having fun for once

Anonymous Mon May 28 20:56:16 2018 No.11230108

>>11230059
it's a sociological analysis. tocqueville is sorta anti democracy in the same way hoppe is, although theyre completely incomparable in every other regard. maybe not that much, but hes skeptical of it, at least. its v pro liberalism, anti totalitarianism / collectivism, and features within it a scathing polemic on the effect of bureaucracy on people's psyche and will.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:59:04 2018 No.11230121 File: 173 KB, 800x1035, 1527177765181.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11230059

Anonymous Mon May 28 21:06:39 2018 No.11230144

>>11229939
Yes it is, since it allies with fascisms/authoritarian right regimes (I can refer to the tacit support of Hayek to the coup by Pinochet) in case of a "red scare". The reactionary element of the book in particular is its "everything I don't like is the same" element (which, ironically is very common in dogmatic Marxists) and the subtle hint that a lot of really minute changes in policy are going to inevitably finish with this so called "serfdom" which time has proven to be a wrong presumption.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:10:35 2018 No.11230161 >>11230144 >inevitably finish >it allies with fascisms/authoritarian right regime holy shit retard u didnt read a word of the book. u just think u know what it says

Anonymous Mon May 28 21:14:09 2018 No.11230180

>>11230108
> a scathing polemic on the effect of bureaucracy on people's psyche and will
In the early 1800s? In America? I didn't even know that was a thing people talked about before the bureaucracy of the great wars.

I'm going to give a read, cheers for the recommendation.
>>11230144
You know a lot of Libertarian's claim to know Hayek but haven't read him but even more critics haven't read a single word beyond the odd .jpg quote and it really shows how fucking stupid you are mate.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 01:38:49 2018 No.11231137 >>11230144 >>Yes it is, since it allies with fascisms/authoritarian right regimes Freedom is now fascist. OK.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:15:55 2018 No.11231510 >>11231137 >as long as I stuff the word freedom in every crack and crevice I can find it's OK, gotta be FREE

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:17:18 2018 No.11231516 >>11231510 Not an argument, antifa.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:18:43 2018 No.11231518 >>11229349 His idea of how money saved is money invested, and his theory of how the interest rate interacts with the production cycle length is backwards.

Anonymous Tue May 29 05:34:17 2018 No.11231906

there's no turning back from the mess we are in now, i just hope the next period would take ancap or libertarian ideas into consideration.
even then, US started as the wetdream of libertarianism and has now expanded into the largest state. ancap is seeming more reasonable and consistent everyday...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 07:35:14 2018 No.11232170 >>11231137 >>11230180 >>11230161 I read the book I'm just saying his argument is retarded, contains a lot of hypocrisy and scaremongering as time has proven it. Sorry for attacking your idol Hayek.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 07:37:10 2018 No.11232175 >>11232170 I agree with that and I hate the book for same reasons and I do think other libertarians put far better arguments.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 11:25:35 2018 No.11232847 >>11231516 >Everyone who I don't like is antifa!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 12:14:08 2018 No.11233046 >>11227556 One of the better replies in this thread IMO. The circle jerk of obstinate Austrians further up is painful. Internet cappies are so overzealous. Also would have liked to hear experiences and thoughts of the city planner anon more.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 12:33:51 2018 No.11233119 >>11231516 writing FREE FREE FREE over and over again like an asylum patient isn't an argument either.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 12:40:26 2018 No.11233140 >>11231906 >i just hope the next period would take ancap or libertarian ideas into consideration yes, let's kill off even the people that will remain after climate change decimates us

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 12:41:39 2018 No.11233146 >>11231906 It has and it's been an unmitigated disaster for the past 40 years.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 12:57:54 2018 No.11233192 >>11233119 yes it is.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:00:43 2018 No.11233206 this thread is a demonstration in why econ fags have limp dick and why no one will ever respect them, and why they could never be considered a science

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:13:14 2018 No.11233261 >>11233206 This but unironic.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:16:19 2018 No.11233270 >>11233206 everyone knows economists are partisan shill using pseudo-science that even they know it's charlatanry merely to provide a supposedly theoretical basis to advance a political agenda

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:18:37 2018 No.11233280 >>11233270 I genuinely have this stance for economics.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:20:22 2018 No.11233286 >>11229967 It doesn't refute it well.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:27:15 2018 No.11233312 >>11229967 that girl has weird looking ass

Anonymous Tue May 29 13:31:29 2018 No.11233326

>>11233046
Thanks. That was my response. I always hope with Economics threads, no matter what the author, there will be some kind of legitimate discussion going on. I’m reading OPs pic after I finish The General Theory, but I really doubt that anyone has read Keynes’ seminal work even once, I’m on my second read through

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:47:22 2018 No.11233405 >>11233270 Having this attitude doesn't help you understand the behavior of economies any better. You can say that you're above it, but you still live inside of it and are governed by its logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:48:29 2018 No.11233412 >>11233312 That's because it's surgically constructed.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 13:48:59 2018 No.11233415 >>11233405 >Logic of economix literlaly ask 1000 professors you get 1001 answers and you cant even predict the future

Anonymous Tue May 29 13:58:54 2018 No.11233461

>>11233415

why are you so upset friend?

Let me put it like this: The process of learning Economics is like mapping out an intellectual landscape. Once you've succeeded in doing so you can refer to 'points on the map' (economic conclusions) by reference to other points; you can navigate the intellectual landscape intuitively. Economics is an intuitive field. Some people are worse at mapping than others, have worse intuitions. This, however, does not seem to be any impediment to groups of economists reaching certain consensuses. If I were you I would listen to the ones whose understanding of the economy yields the greatest predictive power of its future behavior. That would be Post-Keynesians btw...

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:00:43 2018 No.11233468

>>11233415
If you by X for one dollar and sell it for two dollars you will gain a dollar profit. I just predicted the future. You're assuming that because many predictions are unreliable that reliable predictions can't possibly be made. This is obviously fallacious but you're also making a categorical error when you accuse economists of not being scientists--assuming by scientist you mean somebody that uses the scientific method. This is exactly like accusing a historian of not being a scientist. No shit they're not "scientists" and they don't pretend to be which makes your accusation utterly asinine.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:00:45 2018 No.11233469 >>11233461 because I cannot get one predictive explanation of logic of economics.

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:01:47 2018 No.11233474

>>11233468
>If you by X for one dollar and sell it for two dollars you will gain a dollar profit
You already made a mistake of ignoring sunk cost and what I could've earned by doing else with the money anon..

and I can find commie to explain this phenomenon in similar fashion and sasy its predictive, how can thousand models fit and supposedly be predictive, thats not science, thats opinions..

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:04:05 2018 No.11233484 >>11233474 It's completely irrelevant. If you buy something for one dollar and sell it for two you will gain a dollar profit regardless of any other factors you attempt to tack onto such a simple formula.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:04:40 2018 No.11233488 >>11233326 I've read it once before, but I want to go through it again after having read more works reflecting on his.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:04:50 2018 No.11233489 >>11233484 or you lose if next to you was a guy offering you three dollars asd

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:05:49 2018 No.11233496 >>11233489 So what?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:07:41 2018 No.11233505 >>11233496 So you were inefficient and lost money.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:08:10 2018 No.11233506 >>11233469 How bout this: >allow immigrants to come in to your country >increases the supply of labor >drives wages down Simple, no?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:09:01 2018 No.11233510 >>11233506 Liberals say it doesn't work like this though and communists say it is good. So what the fuck. What was explained or predicted or worked here. I don't knopw.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:09:04 2018 No.11233511 >>11233505 Ok, and? What is your point?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:09:12 2018 No.11233513 >>11233505 You're being retarded. That doesn't disprove the original claim anon made whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:10:13 2018 No.11233519 >>11233510 alwaysdotheoppositeofwhatjewssay.png

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:11:21 2018 No.11233522

>>11233513
No but now anon has been deficient in his transaction which he didn't take into account and it will torpedo his entire system due to unintended actions that spawned which nobody can predict and its all fucking checkers and chess pieces on the ground again once the crisis comes when this builds up and crashes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:13:02 2018 No.11233533 >>11233522 You're basically saying >it's all too complicated for me to try and understand, therefore nobody can and it's all nonsense

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:14:21 2018 No.11233542

>>11233533
please help me
was there any book or theory that predicted 2008 eurozone crisis

what are the current theories about effects of ECBs actions in the past 4 years in Spain, Italy and Greece

I relaly want to understand how the house of cards stays up when nothing makes sense, 1000 people act with 1000 theories in their mind and it just works and crashes and works and crashes

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:19:30 2018 No.11233565

>>11233542

Imo, Steve Keen predicted the 2008 GFC well. I don't know as much about the Eurozone crisis, but you could read the account of Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's ex-Minister of Finance, who says it's bullshit all the way to the top. You're intuitions are good though, currently nothing really makes sense.

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:21:39 2018 No.11233577
File: 516 KB, 2194x728, 1507982030937.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11233565
I don't think I've heard of him before. I will read his works and see if it helps me understand reality of econs more. if and if not, i will sperg in some other thread down the road, thank you

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:23:00 2018 No.11233587 >>11233565 Varoufakis is a hack

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:30:52 2018 No.11233632

>>11233587

From what I recall he makes no grandiose claims to even be called a hack. It's pretty common sense by now after 10 years (or should I add 79 more all the way back to 29?), that prioritizing finance and rampant "banking" operations over actual labor (even the administrative labor of CEOs and other related bureaucrats) and actual commodities, will lead to crisis in practically every scenario you can come up with. Whether or not this is correlated to the "shareholder value" philosophy or even to Hayek/Mises by necessity can be argued, but it was certainly associated to libertarianism and liberalism in general, in spite of "left liberals" (a term I'm not comfortable with) pulling the old "it wasn't real capitalism" adage every single time.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:37:50 2018 No.11233662 >>11233587 Yes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:42:55 2018 No.11233692 >>11233587 lol

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:45:14 2018 No.11233704 >>11233692 He is paid Russian stooge spreading disinfo.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature