Economy /lit/

[Anonymous No.14740171]

How can I learn more about economy? Is there something like Coppleston's History of Philosophy but with the principal economic theories?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14740177]

Paul Cockshott, Richard Wolff, David Harvey

It's a pseudo-science not unlike anthropology

[Anonymous No.14740185]

>>14740171
The Worldly Philosophers, by Robert L. Heilbroner
The Economic Naturalist, by Robert H Frank.

These two are good starting points. The first is a history of economics, whereas the second is good for understanding basic theories that most people struggle with.

[Anonymous No.14740240]

>>14740185
>>14740177
Thanks, I'll check those out

[Anonymous No.14740248]

[Anonymous No.14740293]

>>14740171
Start with The Wealth of Nations then move into The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The 2nd book assumes you have basic knowledge of finance. I recommend unironically reading an Introduction to Economics textbook. After these 3 books, you can read just about anything.

[Anonymous No.14740318]

>>14740177
based

>>14740171
>>14740185
>>14740240
>>14740248
>>14740293
retarded lolberts. sowell is a dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.14740383]

>>14740177
I unironically think anthropology is better than something psychology, at least at its core. It just let's itself get overtaken by overzealous racial justice horseshit.
At it's foundation, it did develop based in some real world immersion study, and acknowledges the ambiguity of humans. But some of the principles are solid. For example, all humans have culture, and much of culture is implicit, and becomes subconscious. The complexity of a culture, in norms and customs, can be as complex among illiterate tribesmen as in an advanced society. Those things tend to sustain study.
It's the racial equality and belief in lack of human races where it contradicts itself. Even accepting innate equality, humans have clear divisions that are similar to how we classically conceive race.
I think it is similar to economics in that regard. The field is filled with false and unproven assumptions, but there's certain principles that tend to ring true, even if the reasons behind them are conjectural.

[Anonymous No.14740391]

>>14740171
I have a degree in Economics
Other than >>14740248 most of the advice here is not very good. Specially the one by the tripfag who likely have never studied Economics.

What you are looking for are "Introduction to Economics" textbooks. The most popular one was written by Greg Mankiw, but most others are supposed to be similar to it. But they tend to be enormous textbooks.

[Anonymous No.14740407]

>>14740383
>It's the racial equality and belief in lack of human races where it contradicts itself.

That's not what anthropologists think. The whole field is about detached documenting and analysis differences. Because of that they tend to not hold strong qualitative assertions of this or that being better than something else, which is probably where you are mistakenly associated that with "equality".

>Even accepting innate equality, humans have clear divisions that are similar to how we classically conceive race.

Most cultures did not have enough global contact to conceive of race like you are insinuating. Ethnicity/tribe/language etc are much more fundamental differentiators than the very modern concept called "race" in English.

[Anonymous No.14740408]

>>14740391
(((Economics))) is pseudoscience. You wasted your time at university studying imaginary bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14740423]

>>14740391
Do you do palm readings as well?

[Anonymous No.14740438]

>>14740171
Mankiw's intro is what I used in my intro to economy class. It's a good entry level book
Nicholson's micro is what I used for my microeconomics class but you'll need 2 semesters of calculus and some knowledge on optimization (KKT and Lagrangians mostly)
Gibbons is good for game theory (we usted it in uni too but you'll need calculus)
Anyway Mankiw's intro will keep you busy for some time and after that you can decide if you want more micro or macro or something else

[Anonymous No.14740440]

who would win, neocons after failure nr 29375 or keynes

[Anonymous No.14740443]

>>14740438
Forgot to add that without high school level math most of it will go over your head

[Anonymous No.14740450]

>>14740171
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes
A Treatise on Probability by Keynes
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by von Neumann

[Anonymous No.14740456]

>>14740438
This is how you indoctrinate yourself if you aspire to become an spineless apologist for the status quo.

[Anonymous No.14740463]

>>14740408
I have a BS in Economics. You’re totally right. I wish I could undo my degree.

[Anonymous No.14740468]

>>14740407
How often do you think anthropologists come out say race is real?

Regardless of whether cultures understand race, it is a phenomenon, where certain human populations are very similar even with long cultural and linguistic barriers, like Germans and Slavs.
That is, we can reliably divide mankind into different spheres, even if they overlap. And for the most part, cultures are more similar the nearer they are in racialc stock, for reason similar to what you were describing.
Peoples have been capable of discerning populations more similar or further from them. That's why you can have an encompassing "White" or "Black" identity in America, and also a Hispanic one, even though they speak the same languages, watch the same movies, are under the same educational system, etc. The fact that peoples tend to recognize deeper divisions with nearer people, or that they have differing standards, hardly forfeits the clear genetic evidence. Neither does the fact that there's some overlap, because we can recognize subspecies in nature even with overlap.

[Anonymous No.14740489]

>>14740438
Problem is that almost everything you list is built on a fundamentally flawed interpretations of probability, ergodicity, mathematical expectation, causality etc.

Keynes actually understood this fairly well. And so did von Neumann but he was a bit too loose in letting his axiomatic framework used far beyond the contexts where it was reasonable. So much of what comes after them though is founded on philosophical garbage.

[Anonymous No.14740531]

>>14740468
>How often do you think anthropologists come out say race is real?
The question is inherently stupid, and only a stupid person would actually ask it. Race is a word made up in the language; when you use the word it means something slightly different than when some other person uses it because it has no stable and scientifically rigorous definition. The concept of what race means is culturally created. There are no metaphysical races. Thus when someone says race is not real, they mean race isn't hydrogen or thymine or down quarks, something that distinctly exists in the universe independent of human semantics. It's a word crafted in modern English to describe social/biological phenomena (particularly in terms of differences between groups), some of which touches on genetics, some on language, or culture, or class etc. The whole point of an anthropologist (not a scientist!) is to document how cultures come to craft identity and define concepts for explaining it.

The rest of your post is just saying basic genetics that population groups that share more recent ancestors are usually more similar genetically. Yes. That is basic biology. Congratulations. Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine are real. Unlike different racial categories, their reality is independent of how humans conceive of them, thus it is science.

[Anonymous No.14740536]

>>14740489
Thank you. Finally someone who understands that what is being taught in Economics department is built on a shaky foundations. Economists are wannabe physicists but economics has no immutable laws like physics and the laws of physics don’t change because of “animal spirits” so they end up more like astrologers. Nearly every single undergraduate Economics department will teach principles that are specifically within a New Keynesian paradigm which will go unchallenged and which will teach models designed to retrofit cherry picked past data from a very specific window of time and may even make conclusions about alternatives (i.e. Quantitative easing was good. Was it? We don’t know what would have happened if it didn’t happen.).

[Anonymous No.14740538]

Sanders oversaw economic surplus in Vermont
>With the help of a savvy treasurer in accountant Jonathan Leopold, Sanders found an unexpected surplus of $1.9 million, which he used to pave roads without hiking taxes. Putting out to bid the city’s fuel and insurance contracts, instituting the first audit in nearly 30 years of the city’s pension fund, and streamlining cooperation between departments, he saved hundreds of thousands of dollars. He upped fees for large-development building permits. He raised taxes on commercial properties, but opponents’ ads saying Sanders “does not believe in free enterprise” fell flat. From his third-floor office, with a Eugene Debs poster hanging on the wall—“Unionist. Socialist. Revolutionary,” it said—he launched an economic task force that led to the creation of the Community and Economic Development Office. “It is my view that there is probably no more important area of concern for the City of Burlington than the issue of economic development,” he wrote in announcing the endeavor.
>“Socialist Mayor Presides Over a Spell of Prosperity,” read a headline in Connecticut's Hartford Courant in 1985.
>City staffers sometimes claimed Sanders was “out-Republicaning the Republicans.”
>“Trotskyites for Sound Fiscal Management,” they joked.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

Still think Sanders would ruin the economy??

[Anonymous No.14740541]

I swear this topic comes up on /lit/ just to torture me. I wasted 5 years of my life studying this field and it was totally and completely worthless.

[Anonymous No.14740544]

>>14740531
>Unlike different racial categories, their reality is independent of how humans conceive of them, thus it is science.
Uh oh, anon needs to read Bruno Latour!

[Anonymous No.14740570]

>>14740544
no, I reject applying Latour's actor network theory outside the anthropological context that it is useful in. Ultimately he's using the word "real" different than I am, and his definition is not useful for empirical science.

>>14740536
Yeah it's just weird because of how obvious this was a century ago. All that calculus and axiomatic set theory taken now, and somehow all economists missed their probability theory classes.

[Anonymous No.14740576]

21st Century Economics: A Reference Handbook

Rhonda C. Free

has everything you need to know

[Anonymous No.14740587]

>>14740570
>>14740536
>>14740489

agree

>>14740576 provides really helpful framework and timeline especially sections on histories of economic thought and economics

[Anonymous No.14740588]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the biggest fraud of them all, (((econometrics))).

[Anonymous No.14740591]

>>14740588

one of the more empirical fields of economics?

[Anonymous No.14740606]

>>14740591
no, it's statistical methods

[Anonymous No.14740622]

>>14740606

what is wrong with linear regression??

[Anonymous No.14740625]

>>14740171
What do we think of economics in one lesson? I thought it was easy to read I liked it.

[Anonymous No.14740627]

>>14740588
Everyone will disagree with you because it uses empirical statistical methods but you’re right. People don’t realize that graduate level economics is vastly different from undergraduate level economics. The former is more like econometrics with more complex mathematics and statistics, which in and of itself isn’t the issue. The issue lies in the fact that the mathematics and statistics are applied to faulty models to reaffirm flawed, unchallenged assumptions. Economic (Econometric) models are speculative more than they are predictive or observational.

[Anonymous No.14740633]

>>14740541
Why so? No jobs? I read economics books for fun. Perhaps it would be helpful for something like Forex trading. (knowledge of economics.)

[Anonymous No.14740641]

>>14740627

that's because a lot of studies are funded and began with an end goal in mind. One of my undergrad profs previously worked as an adviser in WHite House for both sides of the aisle. Man was one of the most jaded guys I've met. Straight up told us that the way they go about it is "We want to show that ______ is correlated to _______ go do research that supports this"

[Anonymous No.14740651]

>>14740622
p-values rest on an assumption of asymptotic repetition with context held steady --> this is violated because economics is nonergodic and rarely repeated, let alone with everything held steady

parametric models are only valid if the true data generating mechanism falls under that parametric model, thus we cannot take into account epistemic uncertainty. Moreover from a philosophical point of view, what does true data generating mechanism even mean within economics?

Nothing is truly linear in social phenomena. We can hope for linearity in local conditions, but linearity will not hold globally.

Regression unto itself is just line-fitting. Econometricians tease out causal explanations from them. The whole question of what is causality, what are variables (are they ontological reals?), etc is even more shaky than the other assumptions.

[Anonymous No.14740671]

>>14740651

>p-values rest on an assumption of asymptotic repetition with context held steady --> this is violated because economics is nonergodic and rarely repeated, let alone with everything held steady

>parametric models are only valid if the true data generating mechanism falls under that parametric model, thus we cannot take into account epistemic uncertainty. Moreover from a philosophical point of view, what does true data generating mechanism even mean within economics?

>Nothing is truly linear in social phenomena. We can hope for linearity in local conditions, but linearity will not hold globally.

all fair criticisms but econometrics also utilizes non parametric and non linear regression analysis.

>conometricians tease out causal explanations from them. The whole question of what is causality, what are variables (are they ontological reals?), etc is even more shaky than the other assumptions.

because they get paid to do that at the end of the day

[Anonymous No.14740694]

>>14740538
based

[Anonymous No.14740697]

>>14740171
You have to learn finance before you can learn today's economy.

[Anonymous No.14740706]

>>14740671
>all fair criticisms but econometrics also utilizes non parametric and non linear regression analysis.
sure, but I was replying to "what is wrong with linear regression"

>because they get paid to do that at the end of the day
yeah but that's stupid. Finance quants are much firmer ground because they stick to prediction and modelling correlation.

[Anonymous No.14740708]

>>14740697
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.14740759]

>>14740706

I'm the same guy who asked, although I probably should have been more broad in asking what the problem with regressional analysis is when to my knowledge there are no better statistical alternatives (maybe there are and I don't know). I was an econ undergrad and I liked econometrics precisely because it was more empirical.

I don't know if it is 100% fair to slam the econometrics field just because of how it has been politicized or weaponized for lack of a better term. I wish there were more truly objective economics studies but I understand why there aren't.

[Anonymous No.14740762]

>>14740708
I mean a material portion of the economy relies on its ability to finance debt and capitalize itself.
The economy serves at the pleasure of the markets, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.14740765]

>>14740708

not him but today the two subjects are tightly intertwined

[Anonymous No.14740766]

>>14740538
Based Jews.

[Anonymous No.14740783]

>>14740641
>>14740641
The best econ professor I ever had was my senior year of undergraduate and he basically told us all “I know this is a bit late, but do something else.” He was a highly paid consultant in Washington as well.

I have to ask you. If you’re also cynical of the field, why did you study it? I wasted 5 years of my life on it and it’s very depressing.

[Anonymous No.14740799]

>>14740759
In theory, it is more empirical. The way it’s often applied is not.

[Anonymous No.14740822]

>>14740177
>hardcore orthodox marxists who are unironically into the LTV
this is quite possibly the worst thing you could do

[Anonymous No.14740830]

>>14740783

There are times that I wish I had studied something else, but I do not regret it by any means.

I don't necessarily mind the pseudo-science label; I still egotistically hold myself above sociologists/psychologists/ etc. The pivot towards more statistical methods and away from austrian helps me justify that facade, at least a little bit haha. Sometimes I enjoy not having "one right answer" and studying different schools of thought. It did piss me off when I realized that a lot of what I learned as dogma has since been refuted. But it's made me a more critical thinker and more open minded to new ideas.

It's also a very topical subject these days, with everyone thinking they are an expert because they know about supply and demand or read trumps trade war tweets. And I'd say it's above average in terms of being an employable degree for undergrad.

At the heart of it, I still believe we can do good. Addition of more math to me is a good sign, even if it is just cope by economists desperately trying to get recognized as a hard science. And we only recently have gained access to vast troves of data and computing power. Both will continue to increase exponentially, hopefully. At the same time behavioral economics is just taking off. All this will come with more bullshit, more politicalization and more disagreement. But we will also hopefully learn a lot more.

[Anonymous No.14740919]

>>14740830
Totally agree about everyone thinking they’re an expert and yeah, I never minded the math and there’s validity and opportunity in areas of economics. The mathematics is really the one redeemable area of the field in my opinion. In my case, I never really even had an interest in Economics. I just didn’t think I could get a Math or Philosophy degree and afford to eat and for some reason I was intimidated by Engineering. I went off to work in high finance and it was a pretty miserable experience. I just want to go back to school but I really don’t want to continue Economics. I’m kind of close to a Ba in Math so I’m wondering if I should just start with that. Sorry for the rant but so many economics students and grads I talk to are total economics shills and keep blinders on lol.

[Anonymous No.14741045]

>>14740919

>so many economics students and grads I talk to are total economics shills and keep blinders on lol

I think this is in part due to the way they teach the subject

like neoclassical is taught very early and very dogma like. At least in my experience, they don't emphasize enough that it is not meant to explain actual economies. Not to mention this and some macroecon is about as far as a lot of "econ students" care to know.

I am generally pretty skeptical so that helped me keep the blinders off. There have a lot of real time examples recently that poke holes in major schools of thought, and even these are still up in the air: inverted yield curve, inflation, MMT, negative interest rates, rise and fall of efficient markets. A problem is a lot of so called economists are unwilling to deviate from their particular school of thought, and when confronted with new ideas or phenomena they refuse to be open minded

[Anonymous No.14741057]

>>14740408
Wrong

[Anonymous No.14741102]

>>14741045
I completely agree and that’s honestly my gripe with the more empirical, mathematical, and statistical areas of the field once you cross over into econometrics. It’s all well and good but you’re still applying models to dogmatic principles in the context of one very specific school of thought. It’s not even a gripe about Economics as a study as much as it is the way we approach Economics as a study. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just bitter now, but If I could do it over again I would probably just study philosophy or math or possibly physics or engineering. It seems like industrial engineers and statisticians are actually doing all the stuff that good Economics students are interested in doing anyway.

[Anonymous No.14741121]

>>14740171
There's a bunch of general histories but studying a bunch of shit which is just wrong restated differently gets a little tiring even if spotting the discrepancy between models and reality can be interesting. That's really the take away. Noting much new has ever been said in the past couple hundred years, things are either forgotten/ignored or when it sounds to dumb phrased to bluntly you just find another way of expressing the same idea to make it look more sophisticated.

>>14740293
That progression really makes no sense. Keynes was pompous enough to think classical economics didn't matter much. He's assuming you're coming from a Marshallian background. To understand him you have to understand what was the "mainstream" account of his day. Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics is what you'd have been reading if you were studying in those days.

[Anonymous No.14741125]

>>14740408
>>14740423
Regardless of your opinions on Economics, OP has asked for advice on books to learn Economics.
I'm more qualified to do so than butterfly.

>>14740456
Would you rather be indoctrinated by Marxists?

[Anonymous No.14741152]

>>14740391
>>14740438
Greg Mankiw is the "mainstream" today. He thinks the America government has a "debt problem". He actually wants the government to increase corporate tax rates and introduce some form of federal VAT or something. Hopefully these clowns get listened to less and less as the real cost of public surpluses in your own monopoly money become more obvious and the magic day China will cash out their savings for dollars to go on a spending spree demanding American goods never voluntarily materializes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/business/national-debt-trump.html

Anything that leads you to think corporation taxation (which is regressive and a form of flat taxation on workers or shareholders) and taxing consumers is a good idea is probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.14741166]

>>14741152


>Hopefully these clowns get listened to less and less as the real cost of public surpluses in your own monopoly money become more obvious and the magic day China will cash out their savings for dollars to go on a spending spree demanding American goods never voluntarily materializes.

explain

[Anonymous No.14741173]

>>14741152
If Greg Mankiw doesn't understand Economics, who does?

[Anonymous No.14741177]

>>14740408
modern economics is just mathematical models that attempt to predict and describe GDP growth, prices/inflation rate, unemployment, etc.
If you find them bad then feel free to propose your own, more accurate, mathematical models.

[Anonymous No.14741185]

>>14741173
No one. Modern economics is entirely speculative.

[Anonymous No.14741205]

>>14741177
That’s not true though. Undergraduate economics builds models to retrofit commonly accepted theories. Graduate economics builds models to speculate future events based on commonly accepted theories. No where are there models which attempt to disprove said theories and as a result any modeling you see going on is actually more speculative than it is predictive as it relies on unproven, untested theories commonly accepted as fact despite existence of evidence to the contrary. The inverted yield curve as another anon mentioned is a perfect example of this.

[Anonymous No.14741235]

>>14741205

the theories are not commonly accepted as fact. They are actually constantly and hotly debated among economists. Look at Saez and Sommers on wealth tax. It is just that no one else other than economists themselves care enough economics to notice. They just assume the theories are accepted as fact.

[Anonymous No.14741265]

>>14741235
Sure, some economists debate these things. I’m not denying that. Many of them don’t, however, and the debate rarely enters the graduate school arena. It never enters the undergraduate arena. If you study undergraduate Economics at a University in the US today, you will read Mankiw and all of the New Keynesian dogma that comes with it as well as whatever your professors being with them with no way of challenging it. That’s just how it plays out in reality. Do you disagree? Because that was exactly my experience.

[Anonymous No.14741290]

>>14741265

I can't say I disagree, that was more or less my experience with some exceptions. It changed when we got past the intro stuff. Particularly the newer schools. Half of behavioral econ was basically shitting on everything that came before it.

[Anonymous No.14741302]

>>14741166
Well if your intellectual theory is based on some theorized magic debt-to-GDP ratio where everything explodes but you can't say what it is right now and the problem never materializes than you'd think you'd lose some face.
You look at good prudent financial conservatives like Germany, they built up a nice big economic surplus and their economy isn't doing so well. What if that surplus they accumulated isn't that useful and doesn't translate into a "gift" to future generations?
What if you don't need to starve the private sector of spending power/savings to build a "rainy day fund"?
What if it isn't really hard or costly for "future generations" to find dollars if all those "foreign lenders" and holders of debt instruments want to cash out? The Trump administration is forcing the Chinese to cash out some savings to start some spending but they seem to want to save and send more real goods over seas for dollars instead of spend there's away for more real goods.
I'm just being a little empirical here. Maybe foreigners decide they want to sell off all their t-bills. I don't think that would be really costly. The government could always afford to buy it all.

>>14741173
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=C7520E0E99E6EE9C83698CF67A115A71

[Anonymous No.14741360]

This is the problem with Economics as a formal study. If your basic principles don’t hold up over time, you don’t have an empirical science. If you want to keep doing your thing in Economics departments, that’s fine but stop advertising your field as if it were an empirical science. It’s not. Economists have real physics envy and what’s worse is their meta-narratives have real world consequences for people from the citizens of the nations that operate on those narratives down to the undergraduate student spending all of his time and money studying something he’s been led to believe is an empirical science and will pay off. Many undergrads study economics because they think it will land them a high paying job. Here’s the problem. The unemployment rate for economics graduates is fairly high and the average salary is skewed high because of all the investment bankers, lawyers, etc. who come out of econ programs and for whole the degree acts as a signal of basic intelligence, sociability, and “you believe what we believe”. You’re not even better off studying economics if you want to study it in graduate school. You’d be better off with math, statistics, or something heavy in both. Where are the economists telling people this? All you hear is “a college degree is still the smartest investment you can make”. Then you’ve got stuff like the Bryan Caplan Open Borders book. This is where the distrust comes in. Coupled with the obsolete dogma you’re spoon fed in undergraduate programs, one can only conclude that either something has gone terribly wrong institutionally regarding or it’s simply not as scientific or trustworthy as they want it to be.

[Anonymous No.14741373]

>>14741302

>Well if your intellectual theory is based on some theorized magic debt-to-GDP ratio where everything explodes but you can't say what it is right now and the problem never materializes than you'd think you'd lose some face.
You look at good prudent financial conservatives like Germany, they built up a nice big economic surplus and their economy isn't doing so well. What if that surplus they accumulated isn't that useful and doesn't translate into a "gift" to future generations

well do you believe there are consequences for large deficit spending?? does this mean you are an advocate for something like MMT?? The idea behind reeling in deficit spending is that we are taxing future generations for growth now, not saving up for a "gift for future generations"...

>What if you don't need to starve the private sector of spending power/savings to build a "rainy day fund"?

I am not sure what this means as deficit spending would crowd out private investment if anything... disregarding that, you could still argue that the private sector is artificially juiced up from fiscal stimulus and reeling in deficit stimulus is not "starving" it but rather returning it to normal equilibrium....

>What if it isn't really hard or costly for "future generations" to find dollars if all those "foreign lenders" and holders of debt instruments want to cash out? The Trump administration is forcing the Chinese to cash out some savings to start some spending but they seem to want to save and send more real goods over seas for dollars instead of spend there's away for more real goods.

I don't think you understand what the trade war has been about

[Anonymous No.14741379]

>>14741302
MMT is quackery

[Anonymous No.14741505]

>>14740171
Marx :^)..

(and Schumpeter (Kek))

[Anonymous No.14742065]

>>14741379
fact.
it would give permanence to the wealth gap.
take note of who supports MMT.

[Anonymous No.14742079]

>>14742065
> it would give permanence to the wealth gap.

Why and why is that an issue?

[Anonymous No.14742093]

>>14741373
>well do you believe there are consequences for large deficit spending?? does this mean you are an advocate for something like MMT?? The idea behind reeling in deficit spending is that we are taxing future generations for growth now, not saving up for a "gift for future generations"...
It depends what you mean by "large deficit spending". The consequences will always be some form of inflation somewhere but how much and how it plays out depends on many factors which you don't want to consider. If you are trying to maintain some sort of peg working in something like the gold standard obviously the consequences will be a default on that. If you're borrowing and spending foreign currency obviously you open yourself to a default if you lose control of exchange rates. If you're borrowing something you issue and control the supply of you won't have to default ever and the bigger you go in debt the more others depend on your growth. America empirically has a big deficit, I don't have to "advocate" anything.
You're just stating differently that lower deficits, or even surpluses, are a means to make future generations richer in real terms. I'm saying there's little reason to believe that when you have a floating currency. You're falling for figurative language, "taxing future generations" is literally impossible today, nice PHD though lol
>I am not sure what this means as deficit spending would crowd out private investment if anything... disregarding that, you could still argue that the private sector is artificially juiced up from fiscal stimulus and reeling in deficit stimulus is not "starving" it but rather returning it to normal equilibrium....
You're literally invoking the terms "normal" to describe a none existent state and "artificial" to describe a real one lol
"Crowding out" isn't an empirical phenomena until the government's literally bidding resources away from the private sector, the private sector on its own ain't using a lot of resources and that's generating social costs they don't have to pay for.
The point is if the government wants to "save" more the private sector will have their balance sheets squeezed somehow. You want corporations to stop holding safe government bonds for risky bitcoins and governments to purchase corporate stock from individuals lol
>I don't think you understand what the trade war has been about
Besides the general trade policy/IP stuff Trump wants China to buy American goods. To buy American goods you need to spend dollars. Is America going to start saving in Renminbi? lol

[Anonymous No.14742340]

>>14740171
Are there are truly critical introductions to economics? Nothing dumbed down, no hand-wavy mathematics, no anti-intellectual/philosophical philistine mindset. Is there anything like that? I'm not interested in the conclusions. Just a hardcore analysis of the current state of affairs and how it differs from other systems.

[Anonymous No.14742450]

>>14741379
>>14742065
it is how money works in a sovereign state. it is not simply an hypothesis; it is a *theory*, supported by both the historical record and observation of the monetary system at work.
it is also a descriptive theory, and there is no immediate policy prescription that follows from it. there are austrian interpretations that are completely consistent with the principles.

[Anonymous No.14742516]

>>14740177
>Paul Cockshott, Richard Wolff
ew

[Anonymous No.14742527]

>>14742340
If you want something extremely pedantic try reading Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis. That takes you up to around the 1940s where most of the controversies were already stated in some form.
http://www.urbanlab.org/articles/economics/Schumpeter%201954%20-%20history%20economic%20analysis.pdf

>>14742450
>there are austrian interpretations that are completely consistent with the principles.
I don't know any. The chartalist understanding is directly contrary to the story that the likes of Menger were putting forth. You get two forms of Austrians coming down from that... the hardcore goldbugs who insist only their metal is "real" money and anything calling itself money without a fixed exchange rate for gold is "fraud" based on some understanding of "natural law" (Mises/Rothbard) and the ones who believe money can be created/managed best by markets and the price of gold isn't as relevant (Hayek).

[Anonymous No.14742552]

>>14742527
>I don't know any.
>https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/02/mmp-blog-38-mmt-for-austrians.html

[Anonymous No.14742615]

You guys are wasting your time reading this stuff. Please come to terms with the fact that the people on here shilling this text or that text are posturing pseuds or wannabe intellectuals doing mental gymnastics. Reading and arguing Economics has become the modern person’s way of projecting competence, but the field of Economics is no more scientific than Astrology. 100% of it has some sort of agenda, even if it’s just asserting one’s own sense of pride. There is no unbiased analysis because the nature of the material simply does not allow for there to be one.

[Anonymous No.14742618]

>>14742615
read the thread

[Anonymous No.14742638]

>>14742552
All what I'm seeing from that is some variety of "government should play less of a role in directing resources" may be compatible but that's not only what "Austrianism" is. Like I said every "Austrian" is either for pushing for "backing" all currencies with metals or claim that when the state has a monopoly to decide what they can tax in (or obviously even do that) it should result in less than optimal outcomes.

[Anonymous No.14742662]

>>14742638
true, you have to accept mmt has a premise. i was mostly responding to the charge that 'mmt would give permanence to the wealth gap', which suggests that mmt entails some necessary prescription, which it does not.
it is the *end* of the austrians--minimal government 'interference' in the economy--that are consistent with mmt.

[Anonymous No.14742909]

>>14741125

Or you could read both and the dialogue between and learn to think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.14743395]

>>14740248
Leftist shit, only decent book is Game Theory by Fudenberg