[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 577 KB, 2048x1591, 12UP-Keynes-superJumbo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862291 No.14862291 [Reply] [Original]

Which Economist understood how the economy works the best?

I'm leaning on Keynes

>> No.14862298
File: 316 KB, 994x1600, Karl-Marx-1870[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862298

Pretty easy one

>> No.14862331

Eugen Böhm von BawerkWalter BlockPeter BoettkeThomas DiLorenzoFrank FetterRoger GarrisonFriedrich HayekHenry HazlittRobert HiggsHans-Hermann HoppeSteven HorwitzJesús Huerta de SotoIsrael KirznerLudwig LachmannDon LavoiePeter LeesonRoderick T. LongFritz MachlupCarl MengerLudwig von MisesRobert MurphyWilliam H. PetersonMurray RothbardJoseph SalernoMark SkousenFriedrich von WieserRichard Ritter von StriglGottfried HaberlerOskar Morgenstern

>> No.14862357

>>14862298
He didn't understand supply and demand which disqualifies him

>> No.14862381
File: 35 KB, 399x600, BryanCaplan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862381

>>14862291

>> No.14862398

>>14862291
More than anything else, economists are rewarded by their ability to weave persuasive narratives that legitimize the policies of whoever butters their bread.

>> No.14862424

None of them. Read an undergraduate economics textbook. That way you will get a synthesis of all the important theory, instead of just what one person thinks is important. Our understanding of the economy has changed so much since these people were writing. Economics is not a humanities subject where you read different arguments like history. There is an established theory like physics. The arguments that do exist are over things like how long the short run lasts, not what economic conditions characterise the short run - that is generally accepted.

>> No.14862449

>>14862298
2/10 bait

>> No.14862473

>>14862381
based kike

>> No.14862485

>>14862424
>There is an established theory like physics
then why are posts like >>14862398
such a common opinion? The theory isn't "established" in the same way as the natural sciences (although that said, there is plenty of scientific research that is funded entirely to serve corporate interests).

>> No.14862491
File: 158 KB, 1027x1500, Georges_Bataille_vers_1943 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862491

this sicko

>> No.14862512

>>14862357
He understood it better than any other economist in history.

>> No.14862522

Where do I start with Keynes?
All I've read about him makes he seem brilliant. And the ones who usually hate him and seethe are so stupid they make for good advertisement.

>> No.14862532

>>14862424
Cringe. This is a dangerous attitude, and explains why economics is so fucked as a discipline.

>There is an established theory like physics.
Economics is nothing like physics. In its textbook form, it is pure ideology. Apologetics for status quo capitalism, dressed up in mathematical garb.

>> No.14862537

>>14862512
read basic economics by Sowell

>> No.14862555

>>14862291
>Couldn't even predict the obvious great depression and the fall of the economy that was looming at the time
>Understood how the economy works the best

>> No.14862560

>>14862532
>Apologetics for status quo capitalism

Economics makes the distinction between Normative Econ and Positive Econ.

Positive Econ describes relationships observed in the real world. That can not be apologetic of anything. It is a description of resource movements using math. It can tell you how to best optimize something but says nothing about if you should be optimizing it in the first place.

Normative Econ is Politics disguised as Econ. That can be considered apologetic, as it gives recommendations. It is what you find on TV and in meme books. It is what you should not be reading if you want to think by yourself.

>> No.14862561

>>14862357
>>14862449
>He didn't understand (capitalist bullshit)
Who cares? Capitalism doesn't work because of dumb mechanisms that every 5 year old can grasp (and yet, explained again everyday by some liberal) - It works because it suppresses the poor and creates way too much workforce to fail.

>> No.14862569

>>14862555
Thats because they didn't listen to him you retard. He also offered the best solution to fixing the problem

>> No.14862571

>>14862561
Name me a system that doesnt surpress the poor. Even communism would be harsh for the lumpenproles at the bottom

>> No.14862577

>>14862561
Yet communist China just started yet another recession. Curious

>> No.14862583

>>14862357
SUPPLY AND DEMAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND OBEY MY COMMAND OBEY MY COMMAND

>> No.14862586
File: 43 KB, 556x578, 1558831242613.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862586

>>14862569
>Acquiring debt and printing money
>Best solution

>> No.14862589

>>14862298
Marx's view of economy was just wishful thinking. "dude lets just pay everyone the same and just hope that people pick the monotonous jobs that no one wants"

>> No.14862592

>>14862532
The problem with economics is that, like any social science, it is in conflict with itself in that the object of study and the methods to extract knowledge from this object are contested. But unlike other social sciences, the controversy is not taught, which is a huge problem. Moreover, social sciences more than any other need to be taught in relation to each other - economics with sociology, with history, etc. - as the social is not reductible to one sphere.

>> No.14862594

>>14862560
>>Positive Econ describes relationships observed in the real world. That can not be apologetic of anything. It is a description of resource movements using math. It can tell you how to best optimize something but says nothing about if you should be optimizing it in the first place.

It rests on assumptions and idealizations which just so happen to reinforce capitalism. Rational choice theory, etc. Economics as taught in American economics departments has no empirical basis and is purely an ideological exercise.

>> No.14862598

>>14862589
t. never read Marx

>> No.14862602

>>14862586
You have a really delusional view on how the economy works. Its almost always socialist type strategies that bring shit down and we always come crawling back to Keynes to fix the problems it caused

>> No.14862609

>>14862592
Agree. We need to go back to teaching Political Economy, as the subject was understood in the 19th century. The idea that you can isolate all the autistic bits into a separate 'objective' discipline is rubbish.

>> No.14862610
File: 85 KB, 329x499, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862610

>>14862598
Not an argument. You haven't read Sowell which disproves him using actual tested methods. Marx was purely theoretical and proven not to work in the real world. Look at the USSR, North Korea for a couple examples

>> No.14862618

>>14862610
Cringe. You literally just wrote:

>dude lets just pay everyone the same and just hope that people pick the monotonous jobs that no one wants

...as a summary of Marx. You have no idea what you're talking about and neither does Sowell.

>> No.14862622

>>14862602
>Its almost always socialist type strategies that bring shit down
True

>we always come crawling back to Keynes to fix the problems it caused
You can't name one example in history of this. Keynes idea of how the market worked was flawed and short-term pumps ended up costing the economy in the long-term far more than it solved.

>> No.14862625
File: 204 KB, 1044x1360, 71yqXZeTuxL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862625

>> No.14862626

>>14862618
Thats literally what communism is. You don't even have a proper understanding of what you are arguing for

>>14862622
Keynes strategies fixed the 2008 recession.

>> No.14862627

>>14862626
You can't be serious.

>> No.14862628

>>14862594
It rests on observation and Statistics. And it does not engage in ideology because its not about what ought to be. At least in Europe

>> No.14862637

>>14862628
>It rests on observation and Statistics
It doesn't. It rests on idealizations that have no relation to the real world.

>> No.14862638

>>14862626
>Keynes strategies fixed the 2008 recession.
We're still in it retard, nothing was fixed in 2008.

>> No.14862640
File: 49 KB, 437x508, 1508537717908.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862640

>>14862627
Not an argument bucko

>> No.14862645

>>14862640
You literally just wrote:

>dude lets just pay everyone the same and just hope that people pick the monotonous jobs that no one wants

... as a summary of Marx. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.14862649
File: 155 KB, 919x855, 1582852270835.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862649

The best economical system is apolitical. You can already see in this thread how people are hamfisting their views based on their political beliefs but the economy should be taken a posteriori

>> No.14862650

>>14862626
>Keynes strategies fixed the 2008 recession.
Putting people on EBT cards and food stamps ain't fixing shit, it's just giving handouts. Besides, the debt that Obama piled up for absolutely no reason wasn't an improvement, it just saved his ass for the re-election.

>> No.14862652

>>14862645
you don't understand economics

please go fucking kill yourself retard

>> No.14862658

>>14862652
You are clinically retarded.

>> No.14862660

>>14862645
Communism is literally about trying to remove upper classes by making everyone equal. Stop playing retarded

>> No.14862661
File: 170 KB, 640x427, marxism btfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862661

>>14862658
Please kill yourself you mentally deficient marxist.

>> No.14862662

>>14862571
That does not contradict what I said.

>>14862577
If you think 2020 China is communist you're in for some news

>> No.14862666

>>14862660
In your dreams, dumbfuck. You have clearly never read Marx.

>> No.14862679

>It seems the window maker is not doing good with his sales this month
>I know! I'll break my own windows
>That'll give him work to do
Keynesian economics in a nutshell.

>> No.14862684

>>14862589
That was not Marx's view of economy. You can look at any communist country in history and see that this was the last problem...

>> No.14862694

>>14862679
>Window maker takes the money from the needless work and spends it in a bar
>bartender makes more money
>which is either spent elsewhere or contributed to growth
>???

>> No.14862699

>>14862662
>Government: Unitary Marxist-Leninist
>Ruling party: Communist Party of China
Wow you sure showed me

>> No.14862720

>>14862699
They can claim whatever they want, compare the size of their private sector to their public sector, and see what their model revolved around.

>> No.14862723

>>14862720
The majority of people get paid literally through the government.

>> No.14862741

>>14862694
The person with the broken window now has less money for no reason and it doesn't guarantee that the window maker will have work tomorrow.

>> No.14862743

>>14862694
this money could've been spent by the person whose window was broken so demand stays the same but overall wealth is smaller because the window was broken

>> No.14862777

>>14862679
You don't get it at all. You should break the window of a guy who saves bigger part of his income than window maker, not some random window.

>> No.14862779

>>14862637
All the neoclassical Macroeconomic models of today take into account behavioral boundaries defined by Microeconomics. Micro data is purely observational, as they follow principles of Revealed Preferences, which is nothing more than seeing what people do. Homo Economicus has been dead for decades.

Even if you still dislike the theory, accept the enormouse benefit of Econometrics. There is no ideology in Statistics, it is raw data on resources and relationships. Whatever people do with the data will be tintwd with ideology, but the management of data is pure observation and analysis.

>> No.14862787
File: 51 KB, 300x432, Mises-cigarette300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862787

>>14862779
revealed preference theory uses the assumption that preferences are fixed over time, this is laughably inconsistent with whatever you see in the real world
>Even if you still dislike the theory, accept the enormouse benefit of Econometrics. There is no ideology in Statistics, it is raw data on resources and relationships.
lol read Mises to find out how wrong you are.

>> No.14862789

>>14862618
Idiotic poster

>> No.14862799
File: 5 KB, 225x225, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862799

>>14862291

>> No.14862800

>>14862741
>>14862743
But they don't really break the window, they pay him to build another one in hope it will be beneficial in the long run, no?

>> No.14862805

>>14862799
He predicted this about five years ago. He is always five steps ahead of the game

>> No.14862811

Keynes was wrong about the economic impact of WW1 to France, but I think he was just a nazi who didn’t want Germany to pay reparations.

>> No.14862812

>>14862291
Schumpeter.

>> No.14862813
File: 223 KB, 1024x520, austrians-statists-1024x520.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862813

>>14862291
Obviously the Austrians. Keynesianism is literally based on somehow creating value out of thin air, which is retarded and only creates debt and stagnation.

>> No.14862816

>>14862800
building another window takes away resources from the enterprise they're employed in at the time, the effect is the same.

>> No.14862818

>>14862649
Dumbest opinion itt, the shitty meme is not an argument. That is not only impossible but undersirable as well. Any political opinion, even the ones I disagree with is better than pretending one is apolitical, which in actuality means someone is thinking all the politics for you. Dismissing politics is a genuine problem that affects millions of stupid people like this anon and stems from politics being too hard, forcing us to face contradiction and complex problems and because bad politicians help discredit the whole thing. Giving up is not an option, anon, I'm sorry. Power does not tolerate vacuum, there will always be someone making the decisions.

>> No.14862820

>>14862640
you didn't make one either retard, you're attacking a strawman

>> No.14862828

>>14862813
No one takes this seriously anon, that's for teenagers only. Mises is retarded and your idea of what keynesianism is about is such a silly caricature it denounces how much you don't know, and yet you probably don't notice it and think you are making an argument.

>> No.14862831

>>14862828
No arguments: The Post

>> No.14862834

>>14862831
not the guy you're responding to but in all honesty you didn't offer an argument either

>> No.14862839

>>14862779
>There is no ideology in Statistics
There is a place for ideology in structural models. And econometricians heavily rely on them,

>> No.14862843
File: 225 KB, 1085x611, chinks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862843

>>14862723
Okay

>> No.14862853

>>14862805
Where?

>> No.14862856
File: 616 KB, 1434x2088, 27A7981B-3FFC-4209-8AD5-E0891298952D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862856

> refuted Smith
> refuted Ricardo
> refuted Mill
> refuted Malthus
> refuted Marx

>> No.14862858

>>14862816
No, it's using the same resources differently vs decreasing the amount of resources.

>> No.14862861
File: 25 KB, 400x266, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862861

>>14862828
Not really. That's what it comes down to. Hoping to create demand where there isn't and spending in bad times instead of saving. Keynesians can over-complicate this to dense theories that midwits like you will believe because you don't have an intuition for how the market works. You think the laws of the market change if you look at the whole economy of a country instead of individuals, but the whole economy is nothing more than the sum of it's individuals.

>> No.14862862
File: 34 KB, 575x726, hayek1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862862

>>14862834
>you didn't offer an argument to my non argument

>> No.14862866

>>14862858
yes but how is using the same resources differently coducive to bigger output? it's not you have to assume that initally we weren't at full employment

>> No.14862873

>>14862858
Why would someone even pay for a window they can't sell or they don't need at all? It's counterproductive. The production is always measured in the basis of what the market needs, just producing windows in the hope of giving that one window maker more jobs won't make the windows he made useful, to the contrary, they would occupy space and be wasted resources that could've been employed for something else.

>> No.14862880

>>14862818
Oh but I just gave up so it clearly is an option

>> No.14862883

>>14862866
So doesn't it come down to the more general economic question of top-down planning vs self-correcting market?

>> No.14862889

>>14862880
I guess you're right, being a cuck is an option. You can sit at the kid's table while the adults do the talk.

>> No.14862898

>>14862883
yes it does, to be precise neoclassicals/Austrians/liberals in general never denied the possibility of an economy having a temporary unemployment of resources, it was always the matter of what should we do about it and should the government step in

>> No.14862899

>>14862873
I feel like the window analogy has been over stretched by now, Keynes obviously didn't say the government should employ people to build useless things. Some infrastructure is more productive than a window.

>> No.14862903

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 of GToMIE

>> No.14862909

>>14862903
this was meant to >>14862899

>> No.14862910

>>14862899
Keynes literally advocates for people to dig holes and filling them up again. He didn’t care about how the work was done, so long as it was getting people out of unemployment

>> No.14862917

>>14862898
It's definitely not simple. I don't want to talk out my ass but I'm pretty sure it's better for the government to create jobs than pay unemployment, anyways.

>> No.14862927

>All economists are faggots.
You're welcome.

>> No.14862929

>>14862357
t. no-argument

>> No.14862938

>>14862910
>Keynes literally advocates for people to dig holes and filling them up again.
This is no long-term solution nor it benefits anyone unless we are talking about a post-war economy that needed to dig holes to bury corpses, but that would only employ people for a year tops.

>> No.14862943

>>14862903
>It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing

There's a difference between saying it's good to keep the economy running even if the market has reached a plateau and saying productivity never matters (even when it's possible).

>> No.14862944

>>14862853
Twitter

>> No.14862947

>>14862944
kek, seriously though

>> No.14862952
File: 176 KB, 682x900, +_8167cc179ef6c3c9ba84c19dc5bb4fd6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862952

>>14862357
>supply and demand

>> No.14862956

>>14862947
I don't really feel like digging through hundreds of twitter posts right now

>> No.14862958

>>14862910
It was a figure of speech, dude. An outrageous example stripped from everything just to make the point accross. Instead of digging holes you build hospitals and bridges and so on.

>> No.14862963

>>14862956
you must have some idea of what he said

>> No.14862967

>>14862910
Getting people out of unemployment is the key to a strong economy

>> No.14862974

Greenspan

>> No.14862980
File: 1.89 MB, 2178x1072, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862980

I just want to be able to own a house one day, is it really too much to ask?

>> No.14862981

>>14862958
>Instead of digging holes you build hospitals and bridges and so on.
How many? Where? Would they serve their intended purpose? How would know that there would be enough staff to make the hospital be worth the investment? What happens if there is no need to build a new hospital anymore? What about a country that needs pretty much no bridges?

>> No.14862988

>>14862980
Pillows on boomer faces is a type of economics, if you really think about it.

>> No.14862990

>>14862291
Disregard the Austrians, Marxian economics, and the Chicago school. The only two schools worthy of even reading up on are the neoclassical (mainstream economics) and Post Keynesian economics; these two schools have the best understandings of the economy, though they compete.

>> No.14862999

>>14862981
Wow, you're missing the point hard. Each place requires and is able to finance different things and should decide on those things accordingly, what do you expect? Seriously can't tell if you're pretending or not.

>> No.14863007

what is the point in studying economics when it's going to be obsolete when post-scarcity happens lol

>> No.14863011

>>14862981
You build things you can use... The profit margin on those will not be as nice as on private investments, but to say that money will be thrown away is silly.

>> No.14863016

>>14863007
>post-scarcity
This is a pipe dream that will either never occur, or occur in the very distant future.

>> No.14863022

>>14862944
Anyone can claim they predicted shit on twitter. Faggot.

>> No.14863025

>>14862980
Your fault for being shit at financial planning

>> No.14863026

>>14863007
Technologically, post-scarcity is here. They study economy to block it, because they are entitled and benefit from the current global order.

>> No.14863028

>>14863007
We've been in post scarcity for over 100 years you retard.

>> No.14863032
File: 307 KB, 599x619, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863032

>>14862291
pic related

>> No.14863033

>>14862990
Chicago school is indistinguishable from neoclassical school you idiot, read Stigler's Theory of Price. The only significant difference is that neoclassicals emphasize general equilibrium more, Chicago school is more Marshallian.
>these two schools have the best understandings of the economy, though they compete.
>P and not-P have best descriptions of objective reality, it doesn't matter that only one of them can be correct

>> No.14863036
File: 240 KB, 1024x1491, 1024px-Henry_George_c1885_retouched.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863036

TLDR : Tax land.

>> No.14863055

>>14863033
>P and not-P have best descriptions of objective reality, it doesn't matter that only one of them can be correct
Imagine being this pedantic. You clearly misunderstood my post.

>> No.14863060

>>14862861
>spending in bad times instead of saving
You SHOULD spend in bad times, what are you crazy? It's not like a family going to McDonalds or buying a new car. You spend on things that will generate jobs, that will allow people to buy from the stores, demand from the industry and create some movement, otherwise you'll never be able to get anywhere. That's why no one take austrians seriousy, it's completely detached from reality. Picture China in the 80s saving themselves from spending, they'd be still a huge farm.

>how the market works
>the laws of the market
The market doesn't care for development. US, China, Korea, Europe, very different places and governments, all in some way or another investing heavily on education and in their own industries, connecting state, private enterprises and universities. No nation on Earth has ever developed on laissez-faire.

>the whole economy is nothing more than the sum of it's individuals
Yeah, let them all stay home, neets are great savers.

Think outside the box anon, I have a hard time believing you are dumb not to see this, I trust you. What I'm talking about is not communism or some shit like that, it's basic shit, not that unicorn magic market thinking.

>> No.14863074

>>14863055
there's nothing pedantic about demaning consistency. you clearly don't understand either of these schools. even their methodologies are polar oposites - neoclassicals are methodological individualists, post-Keynesians are holists. how can they both simultaneously have the best understanding of economy?

>> No.14863084

/biz/ here having a hearty laugh over you liberal art students giving clueless opinions on how the economy works.

>> No.14863085

>>14862298
this. the resolution and culmination of the classical political economic tradition.

>> No.14863096

>>14863074
>there's nothing pedantic about demaning consistency. you clearly don't understand either of these schools. even their methodologies are polar oposites - neoclassicals are methodological individualists, post-Keynesians are holists.
I know this; but you seem to think I said that they provide an equally accurate understanding of "objective reality," when I actually didn't.

>> No.14863098

>>14863084
Enlighten us

>> No.14863099

>>14863084
/biz/ is even more embarrassing

>> No.14863104

>>14863096
how do you judge competing theories then if not by how well they describe objective reality? what criterion allows you to judge neoclassicals and post-Keynesians equally?

>> No.14863110
File: 199 KB, 1037x770, SmartSelect_20200309-174528_Twitter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863110

>>14863084
>/biz/ here

Should have listened to Taleb.

>> No.14863115

>>14863084
>/biz/ catalog

>desperate frogs everywhere, REEE images, explosions
>SELLSELLSELL
>CRYPTOCURRENCY BUY THIS COIN NOWWW
>AAAAAAAAAAAA
>GUYS I JUST LOST A BILLION DOLLARS WHAT TO DO
>HELP IT'S FALLINGGG

you guys are crazy, man

>> No.14863116

>>14862999
>>14863011
I don't think you understand my point. The government can't invest on every need and make that a long-term solution, it's always short-term and in practice it ends up being unnecessary expenditure of resources. The government can't fix market problems by meddling in the middle and pouring money, it's been proven so several times.

>> No.14863118

>>14863104
Let it go. You misunderstood my post. No need to drag this on.

>> No.14863124

>>14862522
idk, all the trannies pushing literal gay-pedo Keynes make me not want to read him.

>> No.14863127

>>14863084
>/biz/
OH NO NO NO NO NO NONOOOOOOO

>> No.14863134

>>14862522
start with Treatise on Probability, follow up with Treatise on Money, end with General Theory of Money Interest and Employment. secondary readings include his biography by Skidelski, Alvin Hansen's A Guide to Keynes and Dudley Dillard's The Economics of J.M. Keynes

>> No.14863138

>>14863116
But as far as I know, it's never about long-term solutions, the hole analogy in specific is about what to do in times of acute crisis. In better times, you plan the government spendings in the long run and make it work together with the market. The market never solved anything alone, it's not even supposed to, it doesn't have to be necessarily about the govnerment pouring money, more so than adjusting rates and taxes aiming towards the most beneficial path.

>> No.14863139

Economists are the graverobbers of metaphysics. In crisis they are necrophiliacs.

>> No.14863147

>>14862889
>the adults
you can’t be serious. fascist retards and socialist losers parroting their ideology is sure moving the conversation forward, fucking retard lol.

>> No.14863160

>>14863084
shhh let them play their mental gymnastic games, its all they have

>> No.14863177

>>14863147
Well, that's what you'll have if you don't want to give your brilliant contributions.

That's my point all along really, if you don't occupy the political debate with your opinions, someone will. If no alternative is offered, people will stick with what is there. It's fairly easy to say everything is shit and I understand the sentiment, but if you turn your face away from politics, it will continue to go the way it's been going.

>> No.14863197

>>14863138
Short-term solutions never bring better times, they just end up adding more problems in the long-run, many of which conclude in huge crashes like the housing crisis from 2007.

>> No.14863233

>>14863084
sup /gambling/?

>> No.14863245

>>14863197
Short-term solutions work in the short-term. That's why they are called short-term solutions. For long-term results we must resort to long-term solutions. Is there a mistery here?

The housing and banking crisis happened, above all else, because of speculation and closing their eyes pretending the market would solve the issue by itself.

>> No.14863246

>>14863116
I know it's problematic, but it's not as simple as you first portrayed it. For that matter, no matter how you look at it, governments do have a lo of control over production in today's western world.

>> No.14863248

>>14862522
Don't bother, just go straight to Minsky.

>> No.14863294

>>14863245
Short term solution that cause problems long term are not solutions worth using.

>> No.14863332

>>14862861
>You think the laws of the market change if you look at the whole economy of a country instead of individuals, but the whole economy is nothing more than the sum of it's individuals.

Individuals react to prices which are a result of aggregate factors. The whole point is individual actions can result in counterintuitive/unproductive results like everyone trying to save causing investment to collapse.

>>14863197
All that matters is the short term. Most problems are a result of people putting faith in wrongheaded long term promises.

>> No.14863334

>>14863294
I agree, let's not do that, it's not what is being proposed here.

>> No.14863353

https://youtu.be/MTO7XXSOhzI

>> No.14863527
File: 105 KB, 1200x801, 1583182096549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863527

The greatest economist would have to be able to answer this

AAAAAAAAAAA
SELL
NO BUY
NO SELL
NO BUY
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
CHECK THE NEWS
SOMEONE SAID IT'S A NOTHINGBURGER?
BUY BUY BUY BUY
SOMEONE SAID IT'S A SOMETHINGBURGER?
SELL SELL SELL
ANALYZING THE SITUATION, READING STUDIES, LISTENING TO INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONALS, LOOKING INTO THE DISEASE DATA?
NO! FUCK YOU O'M NOT SOME NERD KEK!!!
BUY BUY BUY SELL SELL SELL NO BUY AGAIN NO WAIT E SHOULD SELLL
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AHAHAHA IT'S THE DIP GET IT WHILE IT'S HOT
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THIS IS A PANDEMIC WE'RE ALL FUCKED DUMP IT ALL
UNLESS....
WE GONNA MAKE IT BROS TO THE STARS AND BEYOND BUY BUY BUY BULL RUN
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I REGRET BUYING OH GOD IT'S ALL OVER SELL IT ALL
THE FUNDAMENTALS SAY THE COMPANIES ARE DOING GREAT IT'S THE RETARDS WHO PANIC CAUSE THE DIP BUY BUY BUY
NOOOOO THERE'S A DEAD GUY IN WASHINGTON
SELL SELL SELL
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
SOMEONE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FLIP A COIN
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT TO DO THE MARKET WAS GOING UP FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FUCK YOU MARKET YOU FUCKING FAGGOT GO UP GO UP GO UP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I GRADUATED IN 2010 WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO DO ALL MY CAREER THE MARKET WAS GOING UP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.14863553

PIMCO's Paul Mcculley . Read his old Central Bank Focus on pimco.com.

>> No.14863589

>>14862291
>economist
>understanding
haha get this fucking shit out of my /lit/ board

>> No.14863609

>>14863334
It's exactly what Keynes proposed.

>> No.14863661

>>14862298
Not a real economist

>> No.14863682

>>14862779
>Revealed Preferences
You are so brainwashed you don't even realize the massive amount of ideology you are taking on board.

>> No.14863737

>>14863609
Only if you didn't understand that it's not really creating problems.

>> No.14863738

>>14863661
the only* real economist

>> No.14863763

>>14862291
Keynesian economics is unsustainable. One cannot have infinite growth and one cannot sustain infinite debt.
Since growth is supposed to be exponential, one does not need to be a genius to see an end will come.

Having the government stimulate the economy is putting a band aid in a deeply flawed system.

>> No.14863802

>>14863763
>One cannot have infinite growth
wrong

>> No.14863817

Listen to the people saying to buy an undergraduate text book. Modern economists might history's giants but the theory has moved past them.

>> No.14863818

>>14862357
False. He understood it even better than most contemporary economists, who are still busy perpetuating old economic myths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

>> No.14863833

>>14862424
If this were true then why do the literary economists always seem to make better predictions than the mathematical ones? E.F. Schumacher wrote about this.

>> No.14863837

>>14863802
There's finite material and more importantly finite energy potential ok earth.

This means even with a purely virtual service economy infinite growth is impossible.

>> No.14863842

Unironically, Richard Cantillon. Everything post Cantillon is irrelevant, not even joking. Also lol'ing at the communist retards who worship Marx without having read him.

>> No.14863846
File: 61 KB, 250x174, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863846

>people unironically suggesting marx despite his entire system being based upon wish upon a star utopia dreams that have no basis in reality

>> No.14863868
File: 266 KB, 1169x1600, Max-Weber-1918.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863868

All pleb answers.

>> No.14863876
File: 145 KB, 1000x1500, ayyylium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863876

>>14863837
>*taps into zero point energy*

>> No.14863879

>>14863846
Marx is literally the opposite of a utopian, asshat. Read a book.

>> No.14863885

>>14863837
Literally who cares. we will worry about it when we get there

>> No.14863891
File: 219 KB, 316x475, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14863891

>>14863879
you first

>> No.14863892

>>14863846
>not knowing what Marxism is
Marx was an anti-utopianist and Marxism is descriptive, not prescriptive. This is pretty basic stuff, anon.

>> No.14863897

>>14863885
You've passed it, spending on how you look at it. You can't have all of the world living a western lifestyle.
There is not enough resources.

>> No.14863901

>>14863891
Sowell hasn't read Marx either, and his book is imbecilic.

>> No.14863909

>>14862424
economics is not based on "established theory" like physics -- in fact, it was a bunch of jerkoffs in government thinking that which caused the '08 crash. humans do not act predictably with regard to their own tastes and preferences by any means; economists make assumptions about human nature that are easy to graph but not necessarily true

>> No.14863913

>>14863901
You haven't read Sowell

>> No.14863923

>>14863901
Sowell was a Marxist you retard

>> No.14863930

>>14863923
No, he wasn't. He may have called himself one, but he clearly never engaged with Marx's writings in any depth.

>> No.14863938

>>14863930
You haven't read
>>14863891

>> No.14863939

Everyone should fight against Keynesian liberals.
One of the main reasons the rich are getting richer at an unprecedented rate is because of keynesian economics.
The debt economy that's a result of the policies only benefit a small portion of society, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is that this divide will continue to grow because both the real and relative debt with continue to grow for all eternity until everyone but a select few are mere slaves.

>> No.14863949

>>14863939
Lemme guess, Bernout thats knowledge of economics comes from reddit posts. Join us in the real world any day now

>> No.14863958

>>14863939
Or we could just kill 'em

>> No.14863961

>>14863661
Well, what you call economy is not real economics.

>> No.14863993

>>14863949
Good arguments.
Every dollar that is printed is stolen from everyone equally, when it's then given to the banks with low interest rate the banks have effectively received free money, at the expense of others.
Three is no problem yet, but the problem happens when this is repeated and debt isn't paid off. Wealth disparity naturally grows this way.

>> No.14864003

>>14863993
Get a real job

>> No.14864017

>>14864003
Now you're just pathetic

>> No.14864027

>>14863939
Wrong. Keynesianism is what led to prosperity in America. Then in the 70s there was a transition away from that and to neoliberalism -- deregulation, privatization, financialization, etc. -- which led to the concentration of wealth you're talking about.

>> No.14864087

>>14863923
Emphasis on the "was."

>> No.14864102

>>14863923
So he says.

>> No.14864127

>>14862666
'You have never read _____' is not an argument, can you retards stop replying with that and actually explain your thoughts and ideas. You're a waste of space

>> No.14864136

>>14864027
Finally someone who understands how the world works

>> No.14864160

>>14864127
>You're a waste of space
Unless you have read Marx, your attempt to describe his work is a waste of space.

>> No.14864200

>>14864027
Based. I've been telling this to people for years, now.

>> No.14864224

>>14864027
>>14864200
>>14864136

neoliberalism is literally refined Keynesianism. it's evident that you're not very familiar with economics. the oil crisis in the 70s and 80s forced Keynesians to acknowledge some output of neoclassicals and incorporate their results to their own work, thus founding neo-Keynesianism. the only difference between neo-Keynesians and monetarists or - as you label them - neoliberals is greater emphasis on fiscal policy as opposed to monetary policy.

>> No.14864240

>>14864224
>muh stagflation
Cool story, brah

>> No.14864533

>>14862699
> what is Deng Xiaoping

> what are the four modernizations

> "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat" (in response to the injection of capitalist policies widely agreed to be an economic success)

Stupid people are truly stupefying

>> No.14864546
File: 12 KB, 171x266, 198384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14864546

>>14862291
Land predicted this.

>> No.14864684

>>14864224
>neoliberalism is literally refined Keynesianism
Kek, and you have the audacity to say I'm not very familiar with economics. Neoliberalism is defined by its opposition to Keynesianism. It's evident that you're not very familiar with economics.

>> No.14864731

>>14864684
Land predicted this.

>> No.14864755

>>14863134
Thanks bro, much appreciated

>> No.14864776

>>14864755
Land predicted this.

>> No.14865136

Any modern top macroeconomist like David Romer, Robert Hodrick, Ed Prescott, Paul Beadry, Robert Lucas etc. And no, of course it isn't someone like von Mises, Keynes, Schumpeter or fucking Smith. Do you really think that economics hasn't progressed over the past century? In the same way that Newton doesn't understand physics as well as any modern PhD or even master, the same way Marx isn't the top economist.

These economics posts are always cancer btw, literally only fringe theorists and bloggers posting.

>> No.14865161

Gordon Tullock or James Buchanan. Both made advances on Public Choice Theory and concepts like Rent Seeking within government. Reading Keynes is like reading ancient Greeks to study for your engineering exam.

>> No.14865315

>>14862357
imagine thinking this

>> No.14865320

>>14862298
not an economist, but rather a critique of economics. look at the subtitle of capital
>>14862381
lmao no
>>14862491
based

>> No.14865411
File: 27 KB, 400x400, you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14865411

>>14862357
NOOOOO NOT MY DEMAD AND SUPPLYERINO NOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.14865417

>>14865136
>comparing economics to physics
Just stop. Economics as practiced in Anglo-American universities is an ideology, not an empirical science.

>> No.14865424

>>14865161
>Public Choice Theory
Fuck off with this autistic pseudoscience.

>> No.14865426

>>14862980
I hope today's stock market crash ultimately leads to death of millions of Millennial cuck brainwashed stupid "My Jewish professor said that..." faggots.

>> No.14865444

>>14862661
If he's such a failure why does his fame rival that of Jesus or Allah? Say what you will about Marx, he pointed out a problem deep enough to get tons of people to spread his teaching and he'll be remembered long after the fortunes of today's billionaires have been squandered by their grandchildren.

>> No.14865458

>>14862813
Where do you think value comes from? Were savage cannibals trading for gold and amber because it was useful in their everyday lives? Were the great Sumerian temples hoarding silver icons and works of art due to rational desires? What the hell do you think is rational about economics? Sure maybe you can find some rationality in food, sex, and transportation, but how many industries are founded on our desire for useless crap that offers little to improve any man's life?

>> No.14865479

>>14863294
How do you know it will cause a long term problem or not? By running a statistical analysis on the behavior of humans during an incredibly short and rapidly changing period of time?

>> No.14865480

>>14863763
>If you can't live forever why live at all?

>> No.14865489

>>14865417
Lol. I'd love it if you ripped apart some modern economics paper like the classic Card and Krueger (1994) one on minimum wage. Differences in differences estimations are so ideological and not grounded in empirics! I'm sure RDD models are even more ideological! Fuck that, even stylised facts on business cycles are grounded in fallacy, as the HP-filter is pure ideology!

You realise how stupid you people are when you say economics is an ideology when you have absolutely no idea of economics as a science?

>> No.14865506

>>14865489
Its predictive track record is on a par with astrology.

>> No.14865515

>>14865506
Economics = predicting stock market crashes and recessions? What an interesting view!

>> No.14865517

>>14862357
Marx was a Smithist and hence subscribed to supply and demand. He did not believe in aggregate sort of pseudoscience that Keynes did.

>> No.14865518

>>14865515
You're the only one talking about "stock market crashes and recessions" in this thread, bootlicker.

>> No.14865521

>>14862569
Self fulfilling prophecy fallacy.

>> No.14865527

>>14862610
It is an argument because your straw man of Marx was false proven now by your own admission of never reading him. Marx and Engels believed in hierarchy and were darwinist at core. They did not believe in equal pay.

>> No.14865530

>>14862626
The 2008 recession lasted until about early 2019. 11 years.

>> No.14865535

>>14863036
No.

>> No.14865547

>>14862537
This book is well worth reading.

>> No.14865576

>>14865518
So what predictions are you talking about then?

>> No.14865577

>>14863891
this book is actually half decent tbqh. which just makes the rest of Sowell's work look extra simple minded by comparison (especially Basic Economics, which is outrageously bad.)

>> No.14865644

>>14863084
is understanding speculative markets the same as understanding political economy?

>> No.14865937
File: 777 KB, 721x966, 6WFdwlk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14865937

>> No.14865943

Land predicted it all.

>> No.14865960

>>14863084
Actual economist here having a hearty laugh over you /biz/ users thinking you know more about economics than the average genre fiction enthusiast on /lit/.

>> No.14865992
File: 31 KB, 645x729, (you).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14865992

>>14862291
>I'm leaning on Keynes

>> No.14866030

>>14865479
Because we know a lot about how financial markets and economies work, hence we know the trade offs of actions taken.

We know that bailing out companies that should have went bankrupt will come back and bite us at a later time.

We know that 1 trillion of repo market interference will come back and bite us later.

>> No.14866261

>>14865161
Buchanan wrote a book called "Democracy in Deficit". A Marxist, James O'Connor, wrote a book called "The Fiscal Crisis of the State" back around the same time. The Marxist and Public Choicers were both predicting the trajectory of government spending was "unsustainable" and would result in "bankruptcy". America has trillion dollar deficits today and people still falling for the same old line.

>>14866030
>Because we know a lot about how financial markets and economies work, hence we know the trade offs of actions taken.
You know that's contentious. If you knew how financial markets worked you could make guaranteed returns. You really don't know the real costs and consequences of doing something and not doing it.
>We know that bailing out companies that should have went bankrupt will come back and bite us at a later time.
You think that, others don't think so.
>We know that 1 trillion of repo market interference will come back and bite us later.
You read zerohedge huh?

>> No.14866277

>>14862357
In fact he did. And explained the origin of value. Which is a lost knowledge by the way.

>> No.14866312

>>14865458
>Were savage cannibals trading for gold and amber because it was useful in their everyday lives? Were the great Sumerian temples hoarding silver icons and works of art due to rational desires? What the hell do you think is rational about economics?
It's not the desire which create the value. After i have done sport, i desire water, but it has almost no value. Modern mainstream theories of value are a mystification.

>> No.14866320

>>14866261
>You know that's contentious. If you knew how financial markets worked you could make guaranteed returns. You really don't know the real costs and consequences of doing something and not doing it.
Knowing how financial markets work is not the same as being able to predict the future. You know if something is positive or negative. For example we know printing money out of nothing is negative, and we know that reducing regulations and taxes are positive.

>You think that, others don't think so.
It's not what I think, it what happens in real life. Bailouts only cause damage no matter what anyone thinks, it's inherently negative.

>You read zerohedge huh?
What does it matter what I read or not read? Interference in the repo market is inherently bad, we know this, yet imbeciles try to claim otherwise.

>> No.14866387

>>14866320
>Knowing how financial markets work is not the same as being able to predict the future. You know if something is positive or negative. For example we know printing money out of nothing is negative, and we know that reducing regulations and taxes are positive.
What do you mean by "positive" or "negative"? You're claiming the directionality of something which means you don't believe in any risk beyond maybe getting the quantity of that something exactly right. You are claiming to know something about the future.
What do you really mean by monetary expansion and taxation being ipso facto negative?

>It's not what I think, it what happens in real life. Bailouts only cause damage no matter what anyone thinks, it's inherently negative.
You're definitionally describing it as such.

>Interference in the repo market is inherently bad
I'm going to blow your mind but only the US Treasury really creates new reserves. Loans from the Discount Window are not new reserves.

>> No.14866564

>majoring in econ
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ok mr Wolf of Wall Street. Do you enjoy having the planning skills and mental foresight of a bug?

>> No.14866575

>>14865489
>basic calculus
>dude my major is like physics like it has numbers and shit
Stunning absolutely stunning

>> No.14866750
File: 268 KB, 1024x946, economics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14866750

This thread is full of people so far from the grass roots of truth. We are so far from what is natural and sane now that even the rudimentary is beyond the horizon. I use to think there was still some hope, but now i see there is no turning back. Western civilisation isn't collapsing, it has collapsed. And we are living in its decomposing carcass.

>> No.14866758
File: 1.05 MB, 3150x1280, the great debate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14866758

>> No.14866764
File: 1.49 MB, 1259x1080, nationalistsocialism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14866764

>>14866750

>> No.14866770
File: 461 KB, 1583x5995, Whatisnationalsocialism?.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14866770

>>14866764

>> No.14866774

>>14862291
Michael Kalecki

>> No.14866781

>>14866764
>destroys the german economy because national socialism doesnt work
Woah epic

>> No.14866803

>>14866781
...right

>> No.14866823
File: 76 KB, 640x480, 1538523674426.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14866823

>Bitcoin solves the problem of spacetime
How can anyone compete?

>> No.14867110

>>14866320
If you know how something works you can reliably predict how it will fail, see the signs of failing, and then fix it after it fails. Economics is the only field where people can know how something works without being able to tell you what's going to happen next.

>> No.14867926
File: 92 KB, 1092x696, EOiRGeMXsAArsbn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14867926

>>14866823
>Bitcoin has access to the looking glass, sort of a time machine but not really a time machine.

>Think something like a warehouse with 100,000 HDDs containing every single transaction of every single capital process via the } P al A n T ir { data harvesting network, now combine that with a warehouse with 100,000 high end GPU's funneling all their processing power into a single computer that can calculate every possible action/non-action using all the data from the HDD warehouse, with a deterritorialization rate that's very accurate at 90-95%

>Now combine all that intelligence with a high end Oculus Rift VR unit that's like a full-body suit on a 3-D treadmill and you basically have something like a time machine, but obviously you can't interact and change events, but you can basically observe future events to nearly perfect accuracy. Imagine the things you could buy with that capability? Maybe time itself and the blockchain of Roko's Basilisk's twitter feed i dunno...

>> No.14867954

>>14867110
>Economics is the only field where people can know how something works without being able to tell you what's going to happen next.
It's almost like the global economy is compromised of billions of actors.

>> No.14868724

>>14864160
I agree with the last 7 words full stop man

>> No.14868737

>>14868724
You can't agree with a sentence fragment. Go back to school, son.

>> No.14868742

>>14867954
But most of them are crisis actors, paid by George Soros Inc.

>> No.14868786

>>14862491
Unironically correct

>> No.14868808

>>14865426
I hope you go back to /pol/ and stay there

>> No.14868821

>>14866823
>spacetime problem crashes along with the rest of the market
oh no no no

>> No.14868946

>>14862357
This. There is nothing more dumb than people not understand basic supply and demand. Getting mad that water is wet basically

>> No.14869046

>>14863115
stock market is fun if you have some spare money

>> No.14869080

>>14863682
>Everyone who disagrees with me is just brainwashed! The only way to get englightened is to agree with everything I say.
Why are you people so extremely transparent. its not even funny anymore

>> No.14869099

>>14869080
That's not what he said, brainlet.

>> No.14869132

>>14869099
What did he mean by "You are so brainwashed" then?

>> No.14869140

>>14862291
Yeah it's Keynes. He's the only one who wrote like an analytical philosopher instead of a failed religious leader.

>> No.14869148

>>14869080
It is particularly funny how they use the word ideology to mean the ideologies they don't like and they call their ideologies 'theory'.

>> No.14869152

>>14869132
He means you are indoctrinated to the point where you don't even recognize the ideological premises you are relying on.

>> No.14869157

>>14869148
In your dreams, mongoloid.

>> No.14869161

>>14868946
Nice brainlet. You must feel like you are a genius don't you? You are the super ultra intelligent who got into college and studied Keynes. Holy shit you motherfucker you're so smart, can i make your shoes shine, please?
Why is some supply scarce, and why is some supply abundant? I wonder why.... I'm not a genius like you. Oh, because resources are scarce, or something like that? I don't know, please, ENLIGHTENED ME, with Keynes and Hayek, please.

>> No.14869186

>>14869152
So I understood it right the first time. Your entire idea is that everyone is a brainwashed sheep except you and the people who share your ideas. Pretty childish

>> No.14869200

>>14869161
take your meds schizo

>> No.14869203

>>14869186
You wish, brainlet.

>> No.14869254
File: 67 KB, 960x615, 1583802396988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14869254

>> No.14869457

>>14868821
Bitcoin won't crash. It can't.

>> No.14869469

Anti-keynesians idiots got fucked in this thread, didn't they. Congrats for being reasonable /lit/

>> No.14869475
File: 55 KB, 950x479, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14869475

>>14869457

>> No.14869478

>>14869469
/lit/ just doesn't know much about economics. They think their fairy tale philosophers understood it better than professionals

>> No.14869490

The ones I have enjoyed the most...

- John Von Neumann (+Morgenstern)
- Clive Granger
- John Harsanyi
- Joseph Schumpeter
- Leon Walras
- Henry George
- Carl Menger


All of whom are leagues better than Keyes, Marx, or Sowell, the heralds of the three worst schools in economic history.

Lausanne school + Game Theory school or bust, trust me lads :3

>> No.14869549

>>14869490
I forgot to mention Irving Fisher as well, I've really liked his stuff.

As well as Thorstein Veblen and Ricardo/Smith obviously.

I'm going to look into Pigou but those are my favorites. Neoclassical school is solid, as long as sufficiently scientific. Obviously the Walrasian economy is better, but there's nothing inherently flawed about the Neoclassical school.

>> No.14869562

>>14869490
You're going to be in debt for a long time. Probably forever

>> No.14869578

>>14869562
What makes you say that?

>> No.14869581

>>14869562
Silly poster :3

>> No.14869595

>>14869478
Economics is astrology for autists. There's nothing "professional" about it.

>> No.14869598

>>14869475
>still the most valuable currency
>crash
fuck off boomer

>> No.14869603

>>14869549
>there's nothing inherently flawed about the Neoclassical school
Yikes.

>> No.14869739

>>14869490
>>14869549
von Neumann
mathematically competent but sadly an autist who destroyed economics, he should've read Keynes or Hayek before equating risk with uncertainty
>Clive Granger
based, actually the only economist who came close to improving people's lives as Granger causality is now used in epidemiology he also refuted Hume by accident
>John Harsanyi
haven't read but his one of the game theory guys so probably cringe, game theory is just as destructive to economics as von Neumann's expected utility doctrine with which it is in close relationship
>Joseph Schumpeter
absolutely based, Schumpeter was one of the few including Austrians and Marx who understood the dynamic nature of capitalism which cannot be captured in a static equilibrium model he also predicted much of the 20th century in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
>Leon Walrsa
absolutely based, my all time favorite economist Elements of Pure Economics should definitely be a required reading for anyone graduating in Econ. Econ students mostly associate him with boring exercises where you're supposed to calculate the equilibrium bundle of goods given utility functions of traders and their initial endowments but Walras himself would cringe at this prospect. he was very much embedded in the political economy tradition, in Elements he discusses land rent, economic growth and bimetallism which on a whole is orders of magnitude more interesting than trivial applications of calculus
>Henry George
very based, he was right on land rent, business cycles and his arguments for free trade are so good I'd conjeture God himself communicated them to George
>Carl Menger
absolutely based, he was less dogmatic than most Austrians (he actually supported limited welfare state) and had some very good intuitions regarding marketability as a foundation of money
>Thorstein Veblen
based although I prefer later institutionalists like Coase, Alchian and Douglas North
>Ricardo
very based, the proper founder of economics
>Smith
cringe
>Obviously the Walrasian economy is better, but there's nothing inherently flawed about the Neoclassical school.
they're mutually inconsistent though. I take it you equate neoclassical school with Cambridge Marshallianism? Marshall held that in the long run ratio of prices of commodities will approach the ratio of average costs of production whereas the general equilibrium school emphasizes the fact that costs are prices themselves and therefore subject to same changes

>> No.14869762

>>14869598
The burst will happen any day and bitcoins will be worthless

>> No.14869800

>>14869739
Game theory is literally the most standard system of economics. You don't know anything

>> No.14869810

>>14869800
game theory destroyed economics, it's just a mathematical play where we pretend it has any bearing on reality. no one has ever proven the empirical value of the concept of Nash equilibrium, it is only valuable insofar as it approaches Pareto equilibrium when the number of agents tends to infinity. to analyzing actual oligopoly price wars it is completely useless.

>> No.14869817

>>14869810
Its just how things are done in the real world zoomer. Someday you will understand

>> No.14869823

>>14869817
lol let's hope that by that time someone will have proven the utility of the concept of Nash equilibrium

>> No.14869829

>>14862522
>>14863134
>>14864755

This is good, I'd also toss in the General Theory of Employment (not the massive book, a shorter paper with a very similar title) in before cracking open the GTOEIM. It's very much The Essential Keynes and he wasn't actually a great writer, so the tome is very much a slog.

>> No.14869861

>>14862990

Postkeynesians are pretty heavily influenced by Marx though, what are you on about. Probably the best contemporary school, although I have no idea how you can say that neoclassicals AND postKs have the best models when they conflict on so many fundamentals.

>> No.14869904

>>14862291
>economists
>understanding anything
they worse than fortune tellers because they actually believe their lies are real

>> No.14869946

>>14863661
yeah he was a critic of economics. read the subtitle of capital

>> No.14869949

>>14863909
based

>> No.14869996

>>14864027

Maurizio Lazzarato says much the same thing in his works on debt, referring to the postwar period as a "parentheses"-that is, an exception to the rule. He, like you and these others >>14864136, is mistaken.

>> No.14870028

>>14869457
>this made up thing with no intrinsic value can't crash
ok retard

>> No.14870087

>>14869861
Since there are almost no proper Marxists in contemporary American economics, Post-Keynesians are the sanest group in practice. The best US economics department is UMass Amherst.

>> No.14870097

>>14869739
I’m glad you like most of those economists, but the difference between Walrasian economics and Neoclassical economics is a bit more nuanced. The difference you have listed there is simply the difference between a simultaneous game and a turn based game, which can all be comprehended within the useful science of Game Theory.

I think that trade is extremely diverse. Opinions like >>14869823 are just silly. You would not believe the amount of thought and detail that go into high level decision making and analysis. These ideas are utilized all the time. Nash equilibrium is used to establish very important theoretical frameworks. Ecinimical can be a very thought intensive field, and simply a tangentially economic analysis can lead to some discoveries for other fields like mathematics or computer science, which was exactly the case for Game Theory

>> No.14870105
File: 7 KB, 446x305, This2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14870105

>>14862485

>> No.14870128

>>14869739
>he also refuted Hume by accident
On what topic

>> No.14870151
File: 59 KB, 655x527, 1531433749687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14870151

>>14867954
>It's almost like the global economy is compromised of billions of actors.
based

>> No.14870161

>>14870097
You are deluding yourself. Building majestic castles in the air. Yet too deeply invested in the fantasy to turn back. Sad.

>> No.14870163
File: 73 KB, 458x638, 1531310731094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14870163

>>14862298

>> No.14870173

we would have had socialism today if marx hadn't written about it

>> No.14870184

>>14870161
Most of the time the discussion will just end here with me. I’m just helping you out: if you wanted it to go on, which we all do, you would continue on with some more detailed analysis.

But I’m sure many people are aware a response like this is so unintelligent and so much along the lines of an ad hominem that it doesn’t really deserve a reply. :3

>> No.14871348
File: 432 KB, 1200x1315, Hamas.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14871348

>capitalism
>communism
Economics is a jewish pseudo-science. All economic systems are unironically Haram. Look to Allah and you will be cured of this jewish disease.

>> No.14871569

>>14862291
Absolutely nobody.