Neolib lit

[Anonymous No.16152155]

As a commie I want to learn a bit more about neolibs and specifically the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics. Which books/authors should I read? Are Hayek, Mises and Friedman the only ones worth reading?

[Anonymous No.16152170]

They're just not good thinkers or economists. Don't waste your time.

[Anonymous No.16152269]

>>16152170
Yeah but their policies are the ones ruling the world and after the '08 crash have proven that they are here to stay since the left has no alternative yet
I at least want to get a lot more familiar with them so I can persuade any neolibs away from them.

[Anonymous No.16152347]

>>16152155
Read the documents proposed during the Lippman conference, those are a good place to start and name all the names you might want. Also, you'll get clear statements on their general principles.

[Anonymous No.16152357]

>>16152155
The most important person you left out is James Buchanan. The "public choice" school had way more influence than those guys than you would believe as the most powerful anti-Keyensian force. It's funny because on the left you had "structural Marxists" like James O'Connor putting out books like "The Fiscal Crisis of the State" which made parrell claims about the federal government "going broke".

Also anyone you encounter calling themselves an "Austrian" today are probably going to be closer to Rothbard than Hayek, especially online.

>>16152269
>Yeah but their policies are the ones ruling the world
Except that's an overstatement. Neoliberal thought after 2008 had a much bigger impact on the thinking of policy makers in the European Union than America or China.

[Anonymous No.16152436]

>>16152269
Hayek's policies were never fully implemented, neolibs only abused his thinking on dispersed knowledge to argue for privatization and against planning while discarding his theory of business cycles
regardless, good sources are
for general neoliberal outlook
>Hayek - Constitution of Liberty and Road to Serfdom
>Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose
>Fukuyama - End of History
>Harvey - Brief History of Neoliberalism
>McCloskey - Bourgeois Dignity
for more specifics
Chicago school
>McCloskey - Applied Theory of the Price
>Jaffe, Minton, Mulligan - Chicago Price Theory (pay close attention to it, it's based on an actual series of lectures delivered at Chicago)
>Friedman - Essays in Positive Economics, Studies in Quantity Theory of Money, Monetary History of the United States, Money Mischief
>Becker - Economic Approach to Human Behavior, Human Capital
>Elgar Companion to the Chicago School
>anything by Thomas Sowell although he works pretty well with the Austrians too
Austrian
>Menger - Principles of Economics
>Bohm-Bawerk - Positive Theory of Capital, Capital and Interest, Karl Marx and the Close of his System
>Wieser - Natural Value, Social Economics
>Mises - Theory of Money and Credit, Human Action, Socialism
>Hayek - Prices and Production, Pure Theory of Capital, Fatal Conceit, Counterrevolution in Science
>Rothbard - Man, Economy and State

[Anonymous No.16152446]

If one takes the Austrians to be split between Hayekians and Misesians, Misesians are definitely not neoliberal since they reject the global economic institutions that are one of neoliberalism's main points.

[Anonymous No.16152450]

>>16152269
>Federal Reserve manipulates interest rates to be lower and lower
>Government actively subsidizes housing and encourages tons of people to buy homes
>"The Free Market did this"

[Anonymous No.16152478]

>>16152357
>The most important person you left out is James Buchanan
thenk
>Except that's an overstatement. Neoliberal thought after 2008 had a much bigger impact on the thinking of policy makers in the European Union than America or China.
Obviously China's macroeconomics will be far from neolib thought lol
>America
Yeah especially with Obama and now Biden who seems to be the next president but it still hasn't moved much further from neoliberalism to be called something else, has it?
>>16152436
>Hayek's policies were never fully implemented
From skimming his wikipedia article I got that he's in favour of providing basic necessities to people who cannot work and he's for decentralized currency which honestly is shocking, knowing the opinions of many of his fans who love to argue about his views online.
also thanks for the recommendations
>>16152347
thenk
>>16152446
every time

[Anonymous No.16152481]

>>16152155
Friedrich Hayek
Milton Friedman
Ludwig von Mises
Karl Popper
Frank Knight
George Stigler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

[Anonymous No.16152535]

>>16152478
>Biden who seems to be the next president
Imagine actually believing this.

[Anonymous No.16152558]

>>16152436
Oh sweetie, you're confused... Hayek knew he never had a coherent business cycle theory and that's why he gave up economics to focus on political philosophy lol

>>16152446
>global economic institutions that are one of neoliberalism's main points
No? If the WTO or IMF or whatever disappeared tomorrow there's no reason you can't unilaterally support free trade and drop all regulations on everything.

>>16152478
>Yeah especially with Obama and now Biden who seems to be the next president but it still hasn't moved much further from neoliberalism to be called something else, has it?
Trump is farther out from any neoliberal consensus than Obama was (or Biden would be). Trump's being advised by supply side nuts (which isn't exactly Chicago or Austrian) like Arthur Laffer... remember there was this guy Reagan who was similar back in the day. He cut taxes on supply side logic and increased military spending (which made him functionally Keyensian). Reagan cut taxes to increase revenues (but surprise it brought deficits to all time highs) while the IMF imposed tax increases to "balance budgets" in South America and elsewhere.

>>16152535
If Trump is reelected what level will be the public debt the day he leaves office? Remember his first tax cuts were premised on annual 4%+ growth rates before covid. If you end up with cartoonishly large public debt and inflation being low the GOP will be in a very bad position since the logic for austerity will be harder to make.

[Anonymous No.16152592]

>>16152450
bear in mind that not all neolibs are Austrians, most are Chicago-type technocrats who want total control over the money supply/ it always evades me how people could view Friedman as a non-interventionist, in fact his theory of the Great Depression boils down to "the government (monetary authorities) did not do enough", basic difference between him and Keynes is the shift of emphasis away from fiscal policy (with monetary policy subordinated to it) to the leading role of monetary policy combined with zero deficit spending
>>16152478
yes, he was pretty idiosyncratic, he's less insufferable than most libertarians, some libertarians even refuse to include him as one of their own. however I don't really understand your point about decentralized currency, I thought that most of his fans you'd encounter would be fully on board with this idea? I know that there is a controversy in the libertarian community between free bankers (influenced mostly by Hayek) and goldbugs (who want a return to full gold standard, mostly influenced by Mises and Rothbard)

[Anonymous No.16152593]

>>16152558
> No? If the WTO or IMF or whatever disappeared tomorrow there's no reason you can't unilaterally support free trade and drop all regulations on everything.
What’s your point? Supporting free trade doesn’t make you a neoliberal

[Anonymous No.16152657]

>>16152592
I don't see how you can say Austrotards who demand gold be money can be any less "non-interventionist" since if you stop taxing things that fluctuate freely are going to fully take over.

>>16152593
Everything can be done at a national level. Few neolibs would consider the global constitutionalization of investor rights and whatnot a primary task but say nations can get rich by being more liberal... while covertly working towards global constitutionalization

[Anonymous No.16152660]

>>16152535
Your orange idiot is going to be beaten by the blue idiot whose brain is leaking out of his ears as we speak and I'll love every single bit of it
>and increased military spending (which made him functionally Keyensian).
wut
First time I hear about this
How is that going to lead to economic growth? By winning wars in the middle east and stealing their oil?
>>16152592
>however I don't really understand your point about decentralized currency, I thought that most of his fans you'd encounter would be fully on board with this idea? I know that there is a controversy in the libertarian community between free bankers (influenced mostly by Hayek) and goldbugs (who want a return to full gold standard, mostly influenced by Mises and Rothbard)
oh umm... idk
All of the people I've run across on the Internet who try to argue by bringing him up are also gold standard freaks
From my experience, the libertarians who espouse decentralized money rhetoric have generally been the crypro-crazy ones who don't read much and haven't even heard of the the people being discussed in this thread
(though as I understand it, crypto is a bit different from Hayek's idea of decentralized currency)

[Anonymous No.16152669]

>>16152660
>>16152558

[Anonymous No.16152701]

>>16152155
I wouldn’t consider Austrian economics neoliberal. Keynesianism is much closer.

Austrian economic does not see endless growth as an imperative in fact it prefers natural gradual healthy growth, and as well would be sickened at all the corporate welfare and government protected corporate monopolies involved in neoliberalism.

>>16152170
T. Seething brainlet

[Anonymous No.16152706]

>>16152155
Just read a textbook.
We do this every day.

[Anonymous No.16152766]

>>16152660
You never heard of stuff like the Strategic Defense Initiative? That had private sector spill over effects, it was a way of subsidizing high tech to outcompete Japan. Reagan got elected claiming he would lower public spending (he increased it) and by lowering taxes would create balanced budgets (Laffer curve moron logic). Lower taxes and more spending on the military actually lead to higher public deficits but did result in increased consumer spending. Trump got elected claiming similar things but his public debt legacy might be so comically large that there won't be a Clinton able to "fix" the problem.

[Anonymous No.16152776]

>>16152701
Keynes supported the socialization of investment, how is that more liberal than people who think markets automatically fix everything?

[Anonymous No.16152792]

>>16152269
>Hayek’s ideas are running the world
>meanwhile corporate welfare, government instituted monopolies, regulations, price controls, welfare out the wazoo, artificial interest rate lowering
>seemingly no understanding of boom bust mechanisms demonstrated by the elite

No just no. Find a different boogeyman this one makes literally no sense.

[Anonymous No.16152811]

>>16152766
Dude, Keynesianism isn't just "public spending lmao"
>>16152792
You guys are literally as bad as the "real communismTM has never been tried" idiots

[Anonymous No.16152839]

>>16152776
It doesn’t fucking matter it’s simply not within the same idea family. There may be some superficial Hayekian influence on some elites and people in power that want to larp, but they in no way act according to them. Even Republicans whenever they have complete power in no way act according to them besides superficially lowering taxes. Their talking points are “the free market” when I reality they don’t give a fuck about the free market or the free markets purpose, which is for the citizenry to live a free and good life, it’s to make the globalists and the people funding their campaigns richer and furthering their interests.

This is partially what led me down to third positionism after realizing all of this.

Anyway

>tldr; neoliberalism and Austrian economics are 2 entirely different branches of “liberalism”

[Anonymous No.16152846]

Gotta read Rawls too.

[Anonymous No.16152860]

>As a commie I wish to learn something I should have been well versed in to rationally reach my current belief system instead of blindly adopting it like I did
leave /lit/ now and never come back

[Anonymous No.16152864]

>>16152811
Neoliberalism and hayekianism are two entirely different visions of the world, one involves endless artificial economic growth, the other natural and gradual growth unaided by the government. I admit Hayekianism is a bit utopian which is another thing that led me away from it, but you seem completely ignorant and confused about what it is.

[Anonymous No.16152872]

>>16152792
He's right way more people today than in the 1950s have faith in market solutions to all problems e.g. you probably have more people talking about legalizing and taxing drugs today instead of advocating drug criminalization like in the past. Why is that? Also when it comes to things like subsidizes the thing is it might be more politically expedient and not necessarily ideological.

>>16152811
>Dude, Keynesianism isn't just "public spending lmao"
No it's a theoretical framework at odds with neoliberal assumptions e.g. consumer spending drives an economy not savers and large public debt isn't problematic per se

>>16152839
Where you see neoliberalism imposed by technocrats it turns out way worse than by those dirty politicians because it doesn't work and they won't have to lower your taxes to stay in control lol

[Anonymous No.16152874]

>>16152846
Rawls was retroactively btfo by Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16152877]

I'M MISTER MISES LOOK AT MEEEEE!!!!!

[Anonymous No.16152883]

>>16152872
Your point when responding to >>16152792 is nonsensical
On the one hand you claim that the policies rule the world
On the other hand, these policies, that supposedly rule the world, completely collapse when confronted with political expediency

[Anonymous No.16152890]

>>16152860
How are you on /lit/ and still can't read?
I wrote "a bit more", not "I don't know anything and want to learn"
I've had people explain thoroughly their ideas, but recently I just got curious about learning from the people themselves. I'm sorry I haven't read every ideologue who's lived on this planet

[Anonymous No.16152917]

'austrian school' has nothing to do with orthodox economics. These clowns are laughed out of every dept. The reason for this is that Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard all rejected the use of math and stats in economics to the point where you can't even formalise a theory of anything at all. This reduces their writings to useless at best and nonsense at worst.

If you want orthodog neolib econ just read a fucking economics textbook and learn econometrics. That's it... Then read some applied micro papers.

The autism itt is unbelievable. Schumpeter is the only one taken seriously, and only really as a historian of economic ideas.

[Anonymous No.16152920]

>>16152872
No he’s not. In an Austrian economic system there can be no subsidies, no form or welfare even corporate, this in no way aligns with the ideologies of mainstream republican “free market theocratism”.

I agree there’s more people that believe in market systems and aliases fair ideas then 50 years ago, but that’s not Austrian economics, that’s just liberalism. It’s like saying anarcho syndicalism and Leninism are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.16152925]

>>16152920
*laissez

[Anonymous No.16152928]

>>16152917
>This reduces their writings to useless at best and nonsense at worst
I mean, all economic theories that use mathematical models are also complete and utter nonsense

[Anonymous No.16152932]

>>16152928
t. Hasn't read even one paper

[Anonymous No.16152946]

>>16152917
>retard thinks economics as a science is any better then psychology or sociology

[Anonymous No.16152956]

>>16152701
>I wouldn’t consider Austrian economics neoliberal. Keynesianism is much closer.
Neoliberalism is literally anti-Keynesianism. Neoliberalism encompasses the Austrians and the Chicago School -- including Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan.

[Anonymous No.16152957]

>>16152932
But I've certainly felt their consequences

[Anonymous No.16152963]

>>16152883
Well if you're really a methodological individualist than you should be butthurt about the political mechanics, no? It doesn't matter what people think in this necessarily since they're self-interested. I might know people would be better off if housing was cheaper but if I own a house I'm not going to support that and allow myself to be made poorer so I'll support inflating housing costs. All I'm saying is people are more confident in buying and selling as an answer to most problems today than 60 years ago, not that they'll support that always.


>>16152920
Economics can't be a "system" in that sense but only a way of interpreting things... you don't get to say if institutions exist or not but have to explain the consequences of their actions.

[Anonymous No.16152972]

>>16152558
>If Trump is reelected what level will be the public debt the day he leaves office? Remember his first tax cuts were premised on annual 4%+ growth rates before covid. If you end up with cartoonishly large public debt and inflation being low the GOP will be in a very bad position since the logic for austerity will be harder to make.
Imagine believing any of this would persuade people into voting for a senile, geriatric pedophile.

[Anonymous No.16152982]

>>16152972
>a senile, geriatric pedophile
which one?

[Anonymous No.16152993]

>>16152972
>rightoids still using retarded "sjw" memes from 2016
holy shit you guys are sad
>>16152982
based

[Anonymous No.16153003]

>>16152956
None of Hayek’s ideas are a part of or implemented by neoliberalism. I agree Keynesianism is different but it’s bearing is much more similar to neoliberalism, which appears to me as a nightmare version of it. Neoliberalism is a monster that both tries to cut welfare spending and public works spending, while increasing free trade and outsourcing jobs and increasing immigration, while also trying to increase corporate welfare and create artificial corporate monopolies that will get bailed out if they ever fail, while instituting tons of regulations to squeeze out any small business competion.

None of this is recognizable to Austrian economics.

[Anonymous No.16153019]

>>16152972
You misread me? The GOP fear Trump and aren't going to demand massive cuts in spending let alone tax increases if he's elected. I think Biden is a cuck and would be more likely to be pressured into imposing harsh austerity measures and causing economic troubles as a result.
Reagan left office with big debt and Clinton was the "reformer" who got that "fixed". I don't think that'll be possible after Trump since things will be way "worse" than after Reagan so things will be interesting as a consequence.

[Anonymous No.16153024]

>>16152963
I'm not a methodological individualist, I'm a strict believer in Aristotelian Carthaginianism
But still
>More confident in buying and selling
I think it might be a bit of a leap to say that people are highly supportive of Austrian economics or even neolib policies because they think exchange is a good way of doing things

[Anonymous No.16153043]

>>16153019
The Fed is doing so much more now in terms of QE than it did in the wake of the 2008 crisis. The Fed's balance sheet is about $7 Trillion now. Just astonishing. Not eager to see what happens when they unwind all that.

[Anonymous No.16153048]

>>16152982
He mopped the floor with Hillary in the debates while Biden can't string a single fucking sentence together and is doing anything he possibly can to skirt them. As for pedophile, show me anything even remotely comparable to Joe's nauseating highlight reel.

[Anonymous No.16153053]

>>16153003
Hayek wasn't a conservative. He supported immigration and letting the rest of the world get rich to.

>>16153024
>I think it might be a bit of a leap to say that people are highly supportive of Austrian economics or even neolib policies because they think exchange is a good way of doing things
I'm saying people are way more narcissistic and less willing to support unconditional socialistic policies (everyone wants to deny someone service, racists or other bad guys). Ultimately markets are the only way you can organize things without solidarity.

>>16153043
And that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16153063]

>>16153053
Yes but he would not have supported the government playing any influence on it, he would’ve supported things naturally happening.

[Anonymous No.16153066]

>>16152993
They age like fine wine. Seethe, pussy.

[Anonymous No.16153077]

>>16153066
Imagine projecting so hard holy shit

[Anonymous No.16153076]

>>16153063
Yes and millions of people are willing to freely employ immigrants to work for them and only positive laws are standing in the way.

[Anonymous No.16153091]

>>16153076
They would employ Americans instead if minimum wage wasn’t a thing. They currently employ Mexican farm workers instead because they don’t have to abide by that or taxes.

[Anonymous No.16153095]

>>16153076
Not to mention the process of just getting a job would go from being a relay her tedious affair to taking only a day without all the regulations and non discrimination shit.

[Anonymous No.16153101]

>>16153095
*rather

[Anonymous No.16153126]

>>16153066
>seethe
>that gif

Yep... You're totally the one not seething

[Anonymous No.16153145]

>>16153091
Even if you deflate American wages it's going to effect what foreigners are willing to work for. You're going to have to make Americans a lot poorer to make foreigners not want a slice of the action.

>>16153095
If you don't have corporations kissing your ass today I doubt in a more liberal environment they're going to be more desperate for you. Capital tends to organize more than labour.

[Anonymous No.16153185]

>>16153145
>Even if you deflate American wages it's going to effect what foreigners are willing to work for. You're going to have to make Americans a lot poorer to make foreigners not want a slice of the action.
Argue with Hayek not me, though the response to that is prices would likely be that yes income inequality would rise, though opportunities to become among the wealthy and to lose all your money if you are wealthy would drastically increase.

Corporations simply would not have the stranglehold they do now on America without the government intervention given to them, which is clearly shown by them lobbying for government intervention in the economy to propagate them.

Without this a lot of these corporations would fail. In the short term that would mean small businesses would get radically more power as all the markets they were locked out of due to expenses and regulations would not be blocked to them anymore. Now in the medium term I’m not saying that monopolies would not emerge, however in the long term if these monopolies do not conduct themselves well they will fail as was ironically enough shown in the 2008 collapse, one of the few white polls from that crisis.

[Anonymous No.16153193]

>>16153185
*whitepills

[Anonymous No.16153367]

Friendly reminder that neoliberalism has been abused to the point where it doesn't mean jack shit. Neither austrians nor chicagoans are even remotely relevant to our modern international (liberal) system. The relevant economics nowadays is MMT which is literally a hardcore version of Keynesianism on steroids, good introduction will be Keynes and Krugman's entire bibliographies. Friedman and the chicagoans have been largely disregarded since Reagan(rightfully so) and the austrians have been ignored by the mainstream since Keynes' general theory

[Anonymous No.16153409]

>>16152155

Just make sure you seperate Austrian business cycle theory from the political theory of mises etc.
You can adhere to axiomatic, cardinal based economics(instead of mathematical, ordinal based) without being an ancap

[Anonymous No.16153472]

>>16153367
>Krugman
>good introduction to MMT
thanks for confirming my suspicion that nobody on /lit/ reads, especially not in economics threads. now go back

[Anonymous No.16153487]

[Anonymous No.16153560]

>>16152155
Come on! What does that have to do with literature?

Post this on /his/ or on /pol/, those areas are much more appropriate for discussion of economics.

/lit/ is for novels, plays, poems, and similar forms. It can include non-fiction, but only if it has literary value.

This is why it's called /lit/ and not /books/.

Otherwise I can come and ask for mangas and sports books because, after all, those are books too.

[Anonymous No.16153572]

>>16153185
You just have an ideological grudge against the corporate form of organization but it dominates for a reason, you can try to undermine it but foreign economies exist which can reap their benefits.
Stuff like Amazon and Twitter aren't in the position they are just because of lobbying but because so much of what's getting the biggest returns are natural monopolies. There's no magic deregulation that'll make hundreds of competitive ecommerce platforms work since that's not what's convenient.

>>16153367
Krugman spent like a month having a meltdown against MMT lol

[Anonymous No.16153658]

>>16153572
>Stuff like Amazon and Twitter aren't in the position they are just because of lobbying
That literally is why Amazon is so successful though they pay no taxes.

[Anonymous No.16153740]

>>16153658
I would say not. It's not like there's any barriers to entry but no one's seriously trying to raise the funds to compete by building warehouses and whatnot. Sometime they'll fall but no one's that interested right now.

[Anonymous No.16153763]

>>16153077
>>16153126
Holy triggered.

[Anonymous No.16153786]

>>16153572
>>16153472
Yeah, krugman is not an MMTfag but he explains keynesianism well enough which is pretty much everything one needs to get the ideas behind mmt, throw in there knapp's state theory and kelton's deficit myth and you can get why its retarded bullshit

[Anonymous No.16153814]

>>16152155
Rothbard>Hayek

[Anonymous No.16154277]

>>16152846
Rawls isn't a neoliberal

[Anonymous No.16154292]

>>16152877
>>>/r/eddit