[ 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: 172 KB, 1346x1546, 1044725660.0.x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17910420 No.17910420 [Reply] [Original]

Refute this

>> No.17910424

>>17910420
oh fuck how long is it?

>> No.17910431

>>17910420
The Austrian school was btfo in wage labour and capital to an embarrassing degree, Hayek is a hack fraud too.

>> No.17910468
File: 239 KB, 574x535, nobel-economics-medal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17910468

>>17910420
Why the austrians have not won more nobles?.

As far as I understand only Hayek has one.

>> No.17910473

>>17910431
>The Austrian school was btfo in wage labour and capital to an embarrassing degree
By who? How?

>> No.17910541

>>17910420
Praxeology is self congratulating bullshit.

>> No.17910550

>>17910541
Elaborate

>> No.17910557
File: 182 KB, 653x638, 564E41B8-DD7E-4257-9F30-861D7F9343EE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17910557

>lolbertarians

>> No.17910560

>>17910550
>Rejects empiricism

>> No.17910564

>>17910473
wage labour and capital is a small early essay of marx. Im a marxist and austrians are retards according to the few economists I know, but wage labour and capital does not refute them really.

>> No.17910566

>>17910557
your mom was a lolbertarian.

>> No.17910571

>>17910557
Lol

>> No.17910601

>>17910560
Economics is by definition A priori

>> No.17910619

>>17910420
Austrian econ in general has pretty major weak points. Like hayek's knowledge problem is a non sequitor, free markets arent the only possible outcome to derive from the true element of the knowledge problem.
The reliance on the rationality of individual consumers in their economic decision making is extremely stupid as well because said rationality is a learned and conditioned behavior that can be taken away. (rational decision making cant be ever-present as much as locke would love to believe) In the modern world it is clear that the good rational economic decision making of the past has recently been conditioned away and replaced by a "bad" rationality that favors wasteful and unfulfilling consumerism. A net loss for the well being of society has to be considered "rational" in the austrian framework simply because everyone chose to do it, its absurd. Mises does however make a brilliant analysis of things like time preference, so my opinion of his work is that most of it is useless because it is reliant on absurd fundamentals or is just biased by libertarian ideology but some ideas that are not dependent on those fundamentals can be extremely useful.

>> No.17910620

>>17910601
If you can’t back your theories with evidence then they’re worthless

>> No.17910804
File: 114 KB, 390x611, Sensory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17910804

>>17910431
Actually Hayek among the Austrians is a peculiar fellow, for even if one disregards his economic theory in toto, there is much to be gleaned from his works especially in relation to his theory of mind. Have you read his masterpiece?

>> No.17910832

>>17910420
von mises didn't believe in mathematical modeling or forecasting at all
this was in the early 1900s, before computers
these days he would literally be laughed out of college and starve to death

>> No.17912136

>>17910832
Yes, and yet his system still has better predictive value than all these quant schools that perpetuate the boom-bust cycle and chase endless inflation.

>> No.17912183
File: 11 KB, 250x201, cringee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17912183

>>17912136
>not understanding the merits of inflation
>not even looking into counter arguments
>not being educated
>following paulbot ideologies
>hurrr gold

>> No.17912213

If human action is rational, then why do we spend electricity on mining bitcoin while 1 million people lose their heat in a Texas snowstorm? This is only rational if you define rationality as narrowly doing that which makes a very small group of people in society richer.

>> No.17912215

>>17912183
>not understanding the merits of inflation
lol, now try deflation

>> No.17912220

>>17912213
Who is we?

>> No.17912221

>>17910420
You can extrapolate simply from the fact that lolbertarians love explaining their theories while Marxists seem to consider it a fatal insult to ask them to do so which set of people is closer to honesty and truth

>> No.17912227

>>17912213
>If human action is rational, then why do we spend electricity on mining bitcoin while 1 million people lose their heat in a Texas snowstorm?

People want to make money from BitCoin.

Texas' infrastructure wasn't prepared for a major snowstorm.

The two aren't connected.

>> No.17912232

>>17912183
What a retarded constellation of assumptions. Typical quantfag.

>> No.17912233

>>17912220
Societies, nations, countries?

>> No.17912237

>>17910468
isn't he the worst of them

>> No.17912238

>>17912233
A whole bunch of abstractions that don't actually exist or do anything. Only individuals act.

>> No.17912242

>>17910557
>the wealthiest countries are lolbertarian
makes ya think, huh...

>> No.17912244

>>17912232
just because we use facts and data to predict the future we're called quants?
what are you some kind of austrian gypsy then?

>> No.17912247

>>17912238
Saying they don't exist doesn't make it so, anymore than saying money is fiat stops it from having value you lolbertarian sperglord.

>> No.17912250

>>17910564
Then why are u still marxist and why are u deliberately limiting ur perspective. Why not actually read books on capitalism and test your perspectives in real life?

>> No.17912261

>>17910468
Aren't noble prize wins in economy like winning paraolympics?
Like I remember one of the theories that got its author nobles caused market crash in the late 1990's and I suspect that wasn't the first time.

>> No.17912263

>>17912244
Yes, you fool yourself into thinking your system is scientific because it's based on "data," when in reality the economy is a complex system not susceptible to the scientific method because no experiment can ever be re-run and no variable can ever be isolated. All your numbers amount to verbose woo-woo and your policies create endless boom-bust cycles via your Money Printer Go Brrr ideology

>> No.17912264

>>17912247
printing money and giving it to some segments of society is the exact same thing as theft

>> No.17912276

>>17912247
Haha is the society in the room with us right now? What did society have for breakfast this morning? Retard

>> No.17912280

>>17912264
Inflation is a whole bunch of abstractions that don't actually exist or do anything. Only individuals act.

>> No.17912289
File: 703 KB, 900x893, LibertariansDontExistInNature.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17912289

Daily reminder that libertarians are grown in vats(e.g free market think tanks) and don't exist in nature.

>> No.17912290

>>17912280
The money supply is an objective fact you unbelievable moron, society is an abstract metaphor

>> No.17912296

Economics is the biggest brainlet filter and only Austrians ever actually got it. Most people think the economy or society functions like an RTS and you should enact such and such policy for +5 Happiness or something.

>> No.17912297

>>17912290
But money isn't real anon. It's simply a paper with the picture of a person on it.

>> No.17912303

>>17912297
>literally describes a physical object
>yes this is exactly like society
Retard

>> No.17912310

>>17912296
Yes, essentially the austrian model is just very uncomfortable for anyone who feels a burning need to intervene for either social change or personal benefit, which is almost everyone.

>> No.17912312

>>17912303
The physical object in question only has value because of the metaphorical association you fucking brainlet.

>> No.17912317

>>17912289
>2016 electorate
Libertarians and ancaps don't vote or participate in polls about voting, what a fucking shocker.

>> No.17912318

>>17912312
Draw me a picture of society and show me where it touched you

>> No.17912324

>>17912317
Monumental cope. You are a minority political opinion just like Nazis and fascists for a reason, and that's because the politics is fucking dumb.

>> No.17912329

>>17912289
Lots of dots smash up in a line on the left and none are on the right at all so clearly the chart is just badly normalized. However they're grading the economic dimension is at fault here

>> No.17912338

>>17912289
holy shit you're blind, all the dots there are close to "most liberal economics," that's libertarians you moron

>> No.17912340

>>17912338
No it's not you fucking brainlet. Liberal in the U.S means left, and conservative means right, e.g bottom right is libertarian because it is socially liberal, but economically conservative.

>> No.17912345

>>17912340
Just admit you read the graph wrong retard, don't try to contort yourself into the position that LIBERtarians dont have LIBERal economics, lmfao

>> No.17912366

>>17912345
I will admit no such thing because I know I'm right.

>> No.17912368

This is the best enemies they have for us, Austrian bros. Guys that can't even read a graph, and guys that think SoCiEtY is a concrete actual thing that performs actions. FUckin rofle

>> No.17912384

>>17912242
Of course, the part that lolberts ignore is that those countries never *became* wealthy through libertarianism, which always makes its appearance only after the wealth has been achieved. The US is a classic example of encouraging free market policies in countries which are at developmental stages during which the America itself wouldn't have dreamed of those same policies.

>> No.17912393

>>17910619
>The reliance on the rationality of individual consumers in their economic decision making is extremely stupid as well because said rationality is a learned and conditioned behavior that can be taken away.

Where did you get this weird idea that the consumer acts in accordance with reason? Mises states explicitly that rational economizing is "not at all applicable to consumption or the consumer".

>Classical economics did not assert that the economizing individual, whether engaged in trade or as a consumer, acts as if the greatest monetary profit were the sole guiding principle of his conduct. The classical scheme is not at all applicable to consumption or the consumer. It could in no way comprehend the act of consumption or the consumer’s expenditure of money. The principle of buying on the cheapest market comes into question here only in so far as the choice is between several possibilities, otherwise equal, of purchasing goods; but it cannot be understood, from this point of view, why someone buys the better suit even though the cheaper one has the same “objective” usefulness, or why more is generally spent than is necessary for the minimum—taken in the strictest sense of the term—necessary for bare physical subsistence. It did not escape even the classical economists that the economizing individual as a party engaged in trade does not always and cannot always remain true to the principles governing the businessman, that he is not omniscient, that he can err, and that, under certain conditions, he even prefers his comfort to a profit-making business.

>> No.17912401
File: 71 KB, 400x388, 1488179292360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17912401

>>17912384
>U.S had the National System the first 130 years of its existence, which was an extremely protectionist system that spent copious amounts of gov't funds on infrastructure and subsidized select industries with high tariffs on import

>230 years later lolbertarians claim the U.S is rich because of free market politics, a politics that didn't truly start properly until Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1981

lel

>> No.17912416

>>17910832
>mathematical modeling or forecasting

Have these things even been proven to work though? It reminds me of those bright young fellows who try to predict the stock market. Can detailed prediction even be made of complex systems? Some new model will seem to be predicting accurately for a few years, and then the deviations kick-in. That's to say nothing about how bad the data inputs are.

>> No.17912419

>>17912401
reminder that the thirty year project of making money fake was already complete by the time Reagan appeared

>> No.17912425

>>17912401
yup, neoliberalism/lolbertarianism is always the ladder pull of the elites after the opposite policies built a successful and functional society

>> No.17912429

>>17912213
>If human action is rational

Purposeful action towards desired ends entails the use of human reason. All choices are rational in this sense. None of the Austrians claimed that man was a profit-seeking automaton.

>> No.17912438

>>17912213
>why do we spend electricity on mining bitcoin while 1 million people lose their heat in a Texas snowstorm?

These scenarios never take into account time, logistics, or local factors. Electricity generated in one place can't easily be transferred to another place. It can't even be easily stored for that matter.

>> No.17912451

>>17912213
Unbelievable how dumb this post is. "why do we'', who do you think 'we' is you faggot, you aren't a hunter-gatherer talking to his 5 hunting party members. obviously human rationality is seated in individual human minds, and to a lesser extent in small cooperative groups, not in the collective behavior of society at large.

>> No.17912459

>>17912429
But a large part of the Austrian project builds upon the fact that an economy is reason *in action*, which is how they justify all their political policy choices.

They actually do believe that an economy is rational, which is why they think you should do *nothing* in a recession for example, because they think a recession is proof that the market needs to correct itself, rather than recessions and depressions themselves being evidence that markets aren't perfect.

>> No.17912466

>>17912237

The worst of who?

>> No.17912471

>>17910420
I’m guessing most of the posters in here never read the book but will defend or attack it anyway.

>> No.17912474

>>17912459
>rather than recessions and depressions themselves being evidence that markets aren't perfec
They can be imperfect and doing nothing while waiting for organic correction can still be the best option

>> No.17912475

>>17912459
When someone chooses to mine bitcoin it's a rational action on their part based on their own valuations of that and every alternative they're aware of. What even would be your alternative hypothesis here?

>> No.17912478

>>17912237
He is the least heterodox of them.

>> No.17912488

>>17912471
It would make sense since I've read Mises, Rothbard, and Marx and I'm swatting down objections with ease

>> No.17912491
File: 577 KB, 2048x1591, E7E9A88B-F7D7-43A5-99BD-DBFA04AEFE66.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17912491

This kills the Austrian.

>> No.17912515

>>17912263
I bet you don't even know how to fizzbuzz

>> No.17912522

>>17912416
yes it's called macroeconomics and people get nobel prizes for it

>> No.17912531

>>17912491
unbelievably homosexually based and britcuckpilled

>> No.17912535

>>17912522
Yeah the same people that created the 2008 crash lmao. They are just crooks stealing money

>> No.17912538

>>17912324
>it isn't popular therefore it's wrong
You are the main argument for fascism.
>>17912338
>>17912340
>>17912345
The graph is dumb on both axises. Because "socially/economically liberal/conservative" is vague as fuck, especially in America. The axises are clearly not showing Authoritarian-Libertarian, as >>17912289 implies. American "liberals" are markedly authoritarian both socially and economically, wanting to use that authority to push for globohomo nonsense and force higher taxes to pay for fat nigger healthcare and censor conservative opinion. American conservatives are just socially authoritarian.
>>17912384
>>17912401
>>17912425
>most popular socialist narrative was that shit like the gilded age, bad parts of the industral revolution, Great Depression etc. was caused by lassize faire economics
>um actually the free market didn't start till Reagan
Which the fuck is it?

>> No.17912539

>>17912475
Yes but that is the fundamental problem with libertarianism and free market politics in general.

Like, I can agree that it is rational for an individual with stakes in Bitcoin to keep mining it, but it's not rational for a state for example to allow Bitcoin mining to continue if it threatens national security.

Same could apply to other things; it's rational for Raytheon to send large portions of the production of their weapons to China because it is cheaper to produce there, but given that those weapons are to be bought by the United States military it's not rational for the U.S gov't to have their military equipment literally manufactured by one of their potential political enemies.

Of course, if you start talking like this to a libertarian, he's just going to deny that there is anything called a "state" or "countries", that the military matters, or that national security is even a thing anyone should give a shit about.

>> No.17912545

>>17912459
Are politicians and civil cervants a more rational breed of human? Are individuals more rational at the momment they stand before the ballots than throughout the rest of their day?

It's not that markets are perfectly rational. They just aggregate and incentivize a lot of rational decision making.

>> No.17912556

>>17912515
You'd lose.

>> No.17912567

>>17912531
All the brightest British intellectuals are gay or bi

>> No.17912579

>>17912539
I think the libertarian would more likely point out that both the military industrial complex and the bitcoin mining situation exist within a context imposed forcefully by the state.

>> No.17912594

>>17912539
>Of course, if you start talking like this to a libertarian, he's just going to deny that there is anything called a "state" or "countries", that the military matters, or that national security is even a thing anyone should give a shit about.
Your understanding of libertarianism is comprised entirely of strawmen. Libertarians believe states exist; if they are ancaps they think the state is an illegitimate monopoly on violence and authority, and if they are minarchists (aka what most libertarians are) they think the state should only exist to protect people and their property. Countries do not equal their states, at least for libertarians, and they are just collections of people that share common culture and kinship, and you could say the country is just an aggregate of said people's property. The military, or any sort of defense service, obviously matters as property not defended might as well not be property at all.
Stop being retarded.

>> No.17912607

>>17912579
Which is a never-ending cope that libertarians like to use. Whenever something has good consequences in the market, it's because of the genius of the invisible hand and whenever something has bad consquences in the market, it's because of government intervention.

This is phenomenon is better known as operating in bad faith.

>> No.17912654

>>17912607
>Whenever something has good consequences in the market, it's because of the genius of the invisible hand and whenever something has bad consquences in the market, it's because of government intervention.
Most socialists unironically think the same but in reverse. You aren't arguing against libertarianism or socialism at that point, just retarded libertarians and socialists.

>> No.17912657

>>17912459
>But a large part of the Austrian project builds upon the fact that an economy is reason *in action*

Yes. The idea is that markets, as co-ordination mechanisms, have more rational outcomes than those devised by any singular person. This rationality is of an organic and spontaneous character. It's like human languages, grammarians can come up with rules that describe them, but the ongoing creation of language is *in action*, to use your expression, the speaking and writing of it in the real world.

>> No.17912665

>>17912607
The military-industrial complex can hardly be blamed on the market when it directly involves state action, how does that even make any sense

>> No.17912682

>>17912459
>they think a recession is proof that the market needs to correct itself, rather than recessions and depressions themselves being evidence that markets aren't perfect.

Mainstream economists would blame markets themselves for terrible outcomes, suggesting greater control for themselves as a remedy. Austrians would blame those who manipulate markets for personal gain. I'm inclined to believe the Austrian position is closer to the truth.

>> No.17912693

>>17912665
Literally learn to read you fucking moron. A private military contractor like Raytheon still has a self-interest in sending the manufacture of weapons to China because of manufacturing costs, regardless of it's close relationship with the U.S military.

>> No.17912712

>>17912693
Why would the US military contract with a company it knows does that? That is the state's fault not the market's

>> No.17912714

>>17912607
I think that's just you hallucinating a strawman idea of libertarians.

>> No.17912720

>>17912539
>Of course, if you start talking like this to a libertarian, he's just going to deny that there is anything called a "state" or "countries", that the military matters, or that national security is even a thing anyone should give a shit about.

When you start thinking about it, the difference between states, provinces, countries, counties, etc. gets a little hazy. Why is it bad for a New Englander to buy milk from Quebec, but good for him to buy milk from Minnesota?

>> No.17912721

>>17912242
No they’re not. There has never been a libertarian country. Even early America put down tax revolts.

>> No.17912724

>>17912693
You can't extract Raytheon as it exists today from the vast network of regulations and government contracts that have produced it. Pretty obvious.

>> No.17912734

>>17912491
Based

>> No.17912741

>>17912712
>Why would the US military contract with a company it knows does that?

Why are you asking me this question anon? Ask your fucking state rep.

>> No.17912746

>>17912720
Yes a borderless world is the end-game of libertarianism of course.

>> No.17912753

>>17912682
>Austrians would blame those who manipulate markets for personal gain

No they wouldn't, because for an Austrian there's no such thing as manipulating a market unless you have the monopoly of violence.

>> No.17912754

>>17912741
The point is that the military, which is part of the state, is at fault here, not the company they contract with. They are not forced to contract with a company that uses Chinese manufacturing. The state could just build its own entire manufacturing chain if it wanted, it has done so before, or force manufacturing to return to US, or at least only contract with US manufacturers. Why would you lay blame for this blatant idiocy on Raytheon?

>> No.17912766

>>17912746
More like a world with even more borders with the current nations broken up into microstates.

>> No.17912772

>>17912746

If anything, a profusion of borders would be the natural outcome. As things stand now, national borders are given undo preeminence. All other borders are castigated for interfering with governance. In a more libertarian world, the borders of an enclave would have the same force as a national border.

>> No.17912781

Libertarianism was btfo by Marx’s theory of class struggle and the state

>> No.17912796

>>17912753
>No they wouldn't, because for an Austrian there's no such thing as manipulating a market unless you have the monopoly of violence.

Markets are manipulated by individuals with ties to government. The manipulation is done by establishing rules or conditions that will benefit you at the expense of others. None of this invalidates what I said.

>> No.17912802

>>17912754
The state *could* do that yes, but how fucking popular do you think that kind of economic nationalism really is among Democrats and Republicans? That's right, not at all.

And also, i'm not laying "blame" anywhere, this isn't about morality you cuck, it's about self-interest. A state has a self-interest to preserve its own existence, while a private company has a self-interest in generating as much profit as possible, these things are not same.

>> No.17912819

>>17912802
That is, again, a problem with the form of government, not markets. The state is dysfunctional, a more functional state can still have relatively free(they're never totally free) markets. The military-industrial complex is a government failure, the companies involved in it are not an indictment of markets.

>> No.17912820
File: 209 KB, 570x860, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17912820

>>17912781

What if I told you that Marxist class analysis has validity from a libertarian perspective?

>> No.17912821

>>17912766
>>17912772
Well of course, when I say the end-game of libertarianism is borderlessness, what I mean is a Californication of the planet, meaning that most places in the world would have the same GDP as Inner Mongolia but very very tiny gated areas with 50000 residents will have GDPs of 5 trillion, just like Marin County.

>> No.17912834

>>17912819
Again you lack the ability to read. The fact that Raytheon has a self-interest to send its manufacturing of weapons to China has literally nothing to do with government, it's about saving costs and increasing their profits.

>> No.17912845

>>17912820
Well he seems smarter than most libertarians I’ve talked to who think that there’s absolutely no power imbalance between workers and capitalists.

>> No.17912848

>>17912834
Raytheon is not the problem, the state choosing to use Raytheon is the problem, it could easily choose a company that only used US manufacturing. You can't blame markets, which are not the same thing as the state, for the state behaving idiotically.

>> No.17912849

>>17912834
raytheon emerged from the state you big dummy, get it through your watermelon head

>> No.17912852

>>17912802
>A state has a self-interest to preserve its own existence, while a private company has a self-interest in generating as much profit as possible, these things are not same.

A typical statesman wants to profit as much as possible. In this way private companies and states are very much the same. Both are controlled by individuals with profit-motives. A solution presents itself: exposure to selection pressure. Let bad companies and bad states fail. Stop propping everything up. It's all can-kicking anyways.

>> No.17912861

Lol

i dont think anyone argues that labour is not a critical factor in value, but the idea that labour is the singular determination is just silly. It’s the mental trick of the humanists who determiend beforehand that workers were important, but since workers have only their work, they tried to make a price 100% about the work of the worker, ie how long does a worker needs to produce a good.

It’s the usual hypocrisy of the atheist who tries to find a justification to his innate prejudices lol. It’s all after the facts.

>> No.17912874

>>17912848
>it could easily choose a company that only used US manufacturing

But that's the fucking point you moron. Even THAT company would have an incentive to send production to China, because that's literally the whole point of international capitalism.

>> No.17912884

>>17912874
hey melon brain are you aware that what you call "international capitalism" is a product of state regulations and not libertarian free markets

>> No.17912893

>>17912884
Stop moving the goalposts you retard.

>> No.17912894

>>17912821
>libertarianism would result in borderless world!
>no retard there would be more borders within the same area
>t-that's what I meant
Coping statist.
>>17912834
You lack the ability to think. You unironically think that the government doesn't have it's nose in every aspect of the economy, including Raytheon selling weapons to China. It's virtually impossible for something to have "nothing to with the government". You are naive as fuck and think shit exist in isolation.
>>17912845
Most grunt ideologes of an ideology are retarded. Or do I need to pull up the twitter or tumblr page of the average professed Marxist?

>> No.17912897

>>17912894
>including Raytheon selling weapons to China.

This sentence proves you literally can't read at all lol.

>> No.17912901

>>17912874
You understand that the state, as sovereign, can tell a company it only gets the contract if it manufactures locally. The state can just create its own manufacturing chain if it wants, as I already mentioned. You act like the state is just forced to let Raytheon do whatever it wants.

None of this is the same dynamic as private companies interacting in markets.

>> No.17912925

>>17912901
It CAN do it but it won't, because the entire house of reps is full of Reaganites you moron.

>> No.17912926

>>17912897
My point still stands whether it's sending manufactoring or sending weapons. Same tier as correcting spelling. Continue being an autist that can't read between the line or understands the world as a combination of isolatable abstractions.

>> No.17912941

>>17912925
That is a problem with the state, not markets. You keep trying to pin the state's behavior on the dynamics emerging from private companies freely associating, this is necessarily retarded.

>> No.17912953

>>17912926
The whole point of my Raytheon example was to give an solid argument for why what is good and rational for a single company isn't necessarily what's good and rational for a country or state, and literally none of you had a counterargument other than "THIS IS THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT!!!!" proving yet again that when confronted with any evidence that contradicts their worldview libertarians sperg out and react exactly like I wrote here>>17912607

>> No.17912971

>>17912953
The Raytheon situation is not an example of *companies* interacting because you are talking about its interaction with the state. Of course it is the government's fault when the government makes a bad decision

>> No.17912999

>>17912971
Man if I knew from the start that you guys couldn't even read, I would never have engaged.

>> No.17913021

>>17912893
ah so you are aware and its cognitive dissonance, carry on melonhead

>> No.17913046

>>17912999
What do you not understand about it being the state's fault when it makes its own uncompelled decision to use a company which manufactures in China rather than in America? How can you possibly blame this on markets? Do you not understand that markets refer to private companies, not to the state?

>> No.17913081

>>17912953
You said in >>17912925 that the government could do something about it but simply won't becuase it happens to be staffed by people that think what's Raytheon is doing isn't worth legislating agaisnt. You think you are making a case against libertarianism but your main point of contention is like one of the top 5 arguments libertarians use against the arbitrary authority of the state. But you are just mad that the state is just happens to be managed by people that disagree with you, but you relinquished the right to be mad about it: the state makes better economic decisions than le invisible hand, right?
>>17912999
You are just seething at this point. Hide the thread and go fume about losing the argument on bunkerchan.

>> No.17913108

imagine thinking raytheon is a free market entity

>> No.17913163

>>17912401
>This means we should spend govt funds on niggers, israel, and fat subhumans getting their insulin.
so epic and based, anon!

>> No.17913164

>>17912250
this is a problematic concept. read hegel, lukacs and marcuse to disabuse yourself of this poisonous & toxic fact worship.

>> No.17913174

>>17913164
Bait

>> No.17913208

>>17912213
uhhh because i dont give a fuck about people i will never meet in my life. its my electricity and i decide what to do with it. fuck you lol

>> No.17913257

>>17913208
based, worthless wastes of space will never understand this

>> No.17913354

>>17912213
You don't read and you're 16 years old. Go back.

>> No.17913449

>>17913208
And you guys wonder why the Soviets made gulags.

>> No.17913454

>>17910620
Do you even know what a social science is?

>> No.17913471

>>17913449
>why the Soviets made gulags
because people don't have empathy for things that don't exist to them? Take responsibility for you and your own you worthless faggot. Stop crying for tax dollars.

>> No.17913512

>>17913449
because they were idiotic and evil

>> No.17913521

>>17912261
>Like I remember one of the theories that got its author nobles caused market crash in the late 1990's and I suspect that wasn't the first time.
Who?

>> No.17913535

>>17912289
Libertarians don't vote you idiot, they are against democracy

>> No.17913536

>>17913471
Stop projecting your fucking imaginary enemies onto random posters on 4chan you schizo.

>> No.17913545

>refute my garbage poo crap
no

>> No.17913547

>>17912491
He wasn't even an economist

>> No.17913569

>>17913535
Cope more faggot.

>> No.17913570

>>17913536
>projecting
no i just hate what you stand for and think youre a faggot for it and i hope you take it personally and realize you will never be a woman

>> No.17913576

>>17912531
>homosexually
this was actually the actual only argument Hayek made against him, and when he was long dead mind you

>> No.17913597

>>17913576
https://youtu.be/y8l47ilD0II
https://youtu.be/Oqhe4K1Jz-8
https://youtu.be/3ywDZ_-U6fY

What about these?

>> No.17913609

>>17913547
what? I think saying "no true Scotsman" here would be redundant since you poor bastard don't even have a brain.

>> No.17913610

>>17913569
>Cope
What? Isn't even a lie, I haven't meet a libertarian that actually believe in democracy or vote, just look at Hoppe criticism of Democracy

https://youtu.be/hUzkZaD1xDs

>> No.17913618

>>17913597
>he was smart, but he didn't have my ontology so I just ignore everything he said

>> No.17913634

>>17913609
https://mises.org/wire/hayek-was-right-keynes-was-not-economist

I have take more economic courses than Keynes.

Also, Marx wasn't an economist either.

>> No.17913655

>>17913618
>He was a man with a great many ideas who knew very little about economics. He knew nothing but Marshallian economics. He was completely unaware of what was going on elsewhere. He even knew very little about nineteenth century economic history. His interests were very largely guided by aesthetic appeal, and he hated the nineteenth century and therefore knew very little about it, even about its scientific literature.
Keynes knew shit about Economic History

>> No.17913667

>>17913610
And yet the Libertarian Party exists in the U.S as does libertarian parties all over Europe.

>> No.17913695

>>17913634
>Keynes began a serious study of economics, reading major texts on the subject.
>He expressed disbelief at both the mathematics and economics results, and commented, probably accurately, that he knew more about economics than his examiners.

>> No.17913730

>>17913667
>And yet the Libertarian Party exists in the U.S as does libertarian parties all over Europe.
Yes, they are lunatics who contradict themselves and libertarians have never taken it seriously.

True libertarians do not want to govern they just want to do business, privatize services called rights and live in peace without the State directing their lives.

>> No.17913737

>>17913634
also this also would mean that none of the austrians are economists either...

>> No.17913781

>>17913667
The Nazis were democratically elected into power, but they don't champion democracy as a social good now do they? That type of thing exists in the realm of pragmatism where you have to relinquish some of your ideals for a favorble outcome, nothing a naive autist like yourself would understand.
>>17913730
"Libertarian" party fags are lunatics but not because they are running for office. They are lunatics becauae the shitty first past the post system in the U.S. makes it mathematically impossible for a 3rd party to go anywhere beyond some act of God.

>> No.17913904

>>17913695
>Investor Sentiment
>Liquidity Trap
>Incomplete Financial Markets
>Rare Disaster
The Austrians have already refuted all this, Keynes did not know what he was saying.

Look up the economic history of Japan.

Look for the parallelism of the broken window with the matrix of Keynesian thought.

Look for Say's Law, which has nothing to do with perfect competition as Keynesians believe, Say comes to the conclusion that in an economy goods are exchanged for goods because to consume you must first produce something and obtain a means exchange that allows to obtain new goods, but the Keynesians have never understood that and that is why all their postulates are wrong. Read Say.

The only thing Keynes did was to specialize more economic analysis, that was his only contribution in microeconomics.

>> No.17913916

>>17913737
They even teach economics at university level

>> No.17914368

>>17910420
Mises rejected that sort of empiricism so you really can't but if you want to resort to real world economic phenomena the grand majority of everything was always going against what "should be the case" if you'd believe him. When the great depression happened what followed was totally opposite to what he feared, a decade of deflation. After WWII all the government debt was supposed to cause economic chaos but what occurred was the highest real growth rates ever. Austrian type ideas only started getting any attention beyond schizoids again in the 1970s when stagflation happened and gold prices were allowed to float, but all that can be explained better differently. After Mises dies gold becomes less and less relevant as a form of money... after Milton Friedman dies the Fed stops caring about the "money supply". Quite funny.

>>17913904
Japan for like 30 years has suffered chronic deflation with continuously growing public deficits.
When you speak of "Says Law" you're basically thinking about a barter economy where production and consumption isn't mediated by monetized financial operations. Goods are actually always exchanged for IOUs that fluctuate in real value, workers are paid in dollars, corporations issue debt to finance operations, workers "save" by purchasing corporate equity, etc, etc. Think about someone giving something away they made for X amount of bitcoin thinking it'll double in value in a year but it actually ends up crashing in dollar terms, I don't know how you could believe purchasing power works like Say thought.

>> No.17914441

>>17912401
That wouldn't really describe the Reagan administration. Reagan went after Japan hard with tariffs and started star wars as a way to indirectly subsidize high tech industries. Carter was a trilateralist and wanted to cooperate with countries like Japan and was way more of a neoliberal and tried to decrease spending on stuff like the military.
The 80s was funny because you had the Reagan administration domestically cutting taxes claiming it would pay for itself (nominal debt increased faster no surprise) when the IMF would only grant loans to developing countries on the condition they increased their tax rates (which slowed down real growth) so they would get paid back.

>> No.17915708

>>17914441
Lol

>> No.17915750

>>17910420
>so this is Human aktion by ludvig von mises? its pages are so thin I don't even think I can wipe my ass with-
>*BRAAAAAAAP*
>oh my-
>*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*
*burn it and reflects whether my shit became smoke*

>> No.17917145

>>17915750
Shut up

>> No.17917206

>>17910431
>>17910473
>>17910564
I heard on a podcast that Von Mises apparently BTFOd the labor theory of value. He was active mostly after WWI, so long after Marx died. I am completely uninitiated in economic theory so I don't know if it was so.
He also supported Britain in the opium wars which I find to be ridiculously evil, but very funny.

>> No.17917716

>>17913521
>Who
Black and Scholes