>implying economics isn't the most important study for the health and prosperity of nations Who /econ/ here? Why do so many philosophers shy away from the most socially important science?

File: 634 KB, 1280x800, jYMBBJG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:47:24 2015 No.7206016 [DELETED]

>implying economics isn't the most important study for the health and prosperity of nations

Who /econ/ here? Why do so many philosophers shy away from the most socially important science?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:48:58 2015 No.7206022 >nationalism pyoor ideology

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:50:04 2015 No.7206026 File: 46 KB, 648x444, economics hayek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Based Hayek

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:54:15 2015 No.7206053 >>7206016 Seems like it's only useful insofar as it helps you explain why government institutions shouldn't intervene in the economy. Technological innovation really drives health and prosperity.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:57:55 2015 No.7206076
File: 169 KB, 500x348, tumblr_ly7dtjvSJa1r5s58mo1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7206026
Sometimes I really wish I were a socialist. All that wishful thinking and idealism. Not having to worry about the lessons of history or how national economies function. Believing that benevolent Big Daddy Gov't will force everything right.

Instead I'm watching my country vote itself an impoverished police state.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:58:42 2015 No.7206079 >>7206053 The market is what brings technology to the people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 19:59:30 2015 No.7206082 >>7206053 Gov'ts fund technological innovation though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:00:43 2015 No.7206091 >>7206082 >gov'ts occasionally subsidize developments in market technology ftfy

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:01:25 2015 No.7206097 >>7206082 >subsidies >good >ever

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:03:37 2015 No.7206113

Hayek is an ideologue, not an economist.

There's respectable stuff written beforehand, but real modern economics started with Kalecki and Keynes. Hayek is one of the reactionaries who wanted to roll back perhaps the first really insightful and empirical writing that existed in econ, and will be appropriately relegated to the dustbin of history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:04:37 2015 No.7206119 File: 226 KB, 448x600, Keynes fiction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206113

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:05:49 2015 No.7206123

>>7206053

Actually it encourages an agnostic approach. One cannot make the problem so simple as government vs enterprise. Virtually the only consensus is that transactional taxes and barriers to entry are taboo. The economic argument for free trade is one that every nation except Best Korea accepts. Freedom of movement is also a universal good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:06:04 2015 No.7206124 >>7206119 Good stuff, it's like the "shelve the Bible in the fiction section" thing for people who get out of the house even less.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:08:26 2015 No.7206137

I don't know why they shy away from economics. Perhaps it's the sort of thing that's either very quantitative and data driven, in which case it doesn't fit with what philosophers do very well. Or its a heterodox area of economics like Austrian or Marxian.

There is quite a bit of Marxian economics in philosophy (I'd say more Marxism in philosophy and cultural studies than in economics), but more philosophers could look at Austrian economics. Human Action with it's deductive method would be an interesting thing to look at. That Kantian stuff doesn't play well with contemporary philosophers but I think a pragmatist or a phenomenologist might get some useful by going back to Mises.

And of course political philosophers could really delve into economics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:09:11 2015 No.7206140 >>7206016 >YFW the soviets failed because Stalin made economics taboo in a society that was centred around creating a new form of economics

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:10:36 2015 No.7206147 Because many of them disagree with the fundamental principles of western economics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:12:31 2015 No.7206153 >>7206140 Or maybe because socialism and central planning are total bunk

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:13:20 2015 No.7206155 Reducing the world to its market relationships is so fucking trite. Economics is the most banal shite to ever come out of academia. Kill it with fire.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:15:21 2015 No.7206166

>>7206016
>>7206026
How could people who actually like economics find these quotes moving? Don't you supposedly like the data and empirical analysis? Don't you prefer econ because it deals in numbers instead of platitudes? Then why the fuck are you only into the platitudes?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:15:21 2015 No.7206167 >>7206119 Hayek must be just before the Kingsbury novels.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:17:19 2015 No.7206175 >>7206155 >a study of a specific thing is reducing your entire worldview Yea, science sucks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:18:21 2015 No.7206182 >>7206166 >if you like data and analysis you don't like good quotes

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:21:02 2015 No.7206190 Hayek's sociological stuff is better than his economics tbh

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:21:52 2015 No.7206193
File: 53 KB, 500x400, capitalism hur durrr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because "economists" refuse to actually talk about their ideologies. Like theologians, they make a list of truisms and argue about them. Philosophy demands engagement, at some point. Economists are a priesthood that draws down Math and "Nature" the way that the Confucian draws down the Sage and the Dao when referring to the Yijing. But at least the Yijing is interesting and not justifying the slow murder and genocide of people and other species.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:22:34 2015 No.7206196 >>7206166 Those things are in no way mutually exclusive, friendo. Would you like to try some breathing exercises?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:22:57 2015 No.7206198 File: 14 KB, 508x376, 1282569514342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206016 >private property is the most important guarantee of freedom Lost

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:25:00 2015 No.7206207 File: 48 KB, 800x600, y capitalism is bad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206193 >make a list of truisms and argue about them Are you attempting to talk about Austrian economics specifically?

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:26:36 2015 No.7206214

>>7206182
>>7206196
Basically every person who has spent more than a single AP class studying this shit agrees that Keynes was way closer to right than Hayek. But whatever, I won't convince you, go on back to r/AustrianEconomics and post memes there to reinforce your identity, that's what you guys like, not actually learning or understanding any of this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:28:23 2015 No.7206222 File: 820 KB, 960x480, Keynesian utopia.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206214 Go to bed Krugman.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:28:33 2015 No.7206223 >>7206207 Classical economics and liberalism in general.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:28:38 2015 No.7206224

>>7206076

>Sometimes I really wish I were a socialist. All that wishful thinking and idealism. Not having to worry about the lessons of history or how national economies function. Believing that benevolent Big Daddy Gov't will force everything right.

I literally find being a socialist hard for those very reasons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:28:38 2015 No.7206225 >>7206166 You seem to have economics confused with am actual science

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:28:51 2015 No.7206227

>>7206091
what market technologies? the internet, all the actual technology of apple, google, green technology etc. was government funded. all private corporations are good at is keeping the profits for themselves and marketing that shit.

>>7206097
subsidies are the only way of prodding the market to make technology that's useful, difficult to fund and not new hypersensitive iphone screens so you can get a new high score on angrybird

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:31:55 2015 No.7206237 >>7206225 Economics student here. Undeniably not a complete science as it's impossible not to hold some political bias but definitely a mix of science and humanity.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:31:56 2015 No.7206239

Because economics is pure ideology designed by the rich to allow them to take from the poor. It's a way of fooling people so that they don't resist the system. Most economists are paid shills and don't really believe anything they say.

Fortunately there are a few good people out there like Bernie Sanders and Mary Kay of SEIU and Richard Trumpka of AFL-CIO who really care about the poor and working people. If we could just get some good people in power we could take from rich corporations and billionaires and give to public schools and free hospitals. Everyone should have the opportunity to flourisgh and that means restricting trade (which is a race to the bottom) paying a living wage to all ($45 an hour minimum) and restricting top income with a 90% tax.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:33:14 2015 No.7206241 >>7206239 This is surely bait

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:35:25 2015 No.7206251 >>7206241 but is it wrong??? a basic income would sever the need for living wage

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:36:51 2015 No.7206259 >>7206251 I think we should have a basic income via a negative income tax and we should abolish the minimum wage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:38:45 2015 No.7206269 >>7206259 How is the incentive to work hard any different with a NIT compared to a minimum wage?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:40:17 2015 No.7206272 >>7206269 That's not the point. The minimum wage prices people out of the labor market.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:50:26 2015 No.7206300

>>7206269
>>7206272
Personally I would vastly prefer a basic income to a minimum wage - UBI gets at the real issue much more directly. But if there's popular support for minimum wage and not for UBI, I'll support the minimum wage - it does some work to shift income away from capital toward labor, and on balance it's better than nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:50:55 2015 No.7206301 >>7206016 Econ rules. Go for the joint math/econ degree though because it's better and people drop the > muh pseudoscience since you know more math than engineers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:52:04 2015 No.7206306 >>7206016 Nominal gdp target achieved with monthly checks to all citizens when? Why does everyone hate that idea?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:55:02 2015 No.7206324 >>7206300 The minimum wage is not better than nothing. It does shift a few workers a tiny bit up, but on the whole it has negative effects, especially for poor teenagers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 20:57:54 2015 No.7206333 >>7206016 >economics >science Good fucking luck trying to account for the bazillion variables.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:02:40 2015 No.7206347 >>7206324 Disagree (I like Arin Dube's work on the topic: http://prospect.org/article/minimum-wage-101)) but ultimately I don't really feel strongly enough about it to argue the point - UBI is a much better solution.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:04:23 2015 No.7206355 >>7206113 Can you elaborate further on this?

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:04:33 2015 No.7206356

What are some good arguments against Austrian school economics?

It's becoming very popular in my country and I think the people who support it are disgusting, materialistic, and boring, so I'd like to prove them wrong.

So, /lit, what are the arguments?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:06:50 2015 No.7206360 File: 36 KB, 660x230, 1435094631945.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206356 >wanting to disprove people because you don't like them

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:07:00 2015 No.7206361 >>7206356 Marx.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:09:38 2015 No.7206371 File: 66 KB, 720x704, 11709557_864505723605008_63195329637347019_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206239 You almost got me flustered. top ruse, m8. had a good laff (y)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:10:53 2015 No.7206377 >>7206361 No, it isn't. >>7206360 If you only saw them...

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:11:35 2015 No.7206381 >>7206371 Thanks m8, I tried

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:21:38 2015 No.7206429 >>7206301 >More math than engineers Congrats on finishing calc 3 lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:22:55 2015 No.7206436 >>7206356 >What are some good arguments against Austrian school economics? Hume, Lakatos

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:24:18 2015 No.7206443 th-the only book on economics I need is C-Capital

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:25:13 2015 No.7206453 >>7206356 Just call them heterodox and deride them for not being as rigorous as physics. Then call Hayek a conservative.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:30:44 2015 No.7206487 Daily reminder that ALL of the most influential and well-respected economists today are all CAPITALIST Marxists BTFO! leftism is a mental illness

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:36:46 2015 No.7206516

>>7206355
For a long time, given the relative newness of industrial capitalism and the lack of official and reliable bookkeeping, there just wasn't really available data to support any argument anyone wanted to make on econ. Marx, for instance, was admirable in his time but basically reduced to making very broad arguments about the tendency of capitalist systems in the long run that turned out to be incorrect. (This is still debated in fringe econ circles, but most people, including many working today in a broadly Marxian tradition, think his "tendency for the rate of profit to decline" was simply wrong unless you held constant several things that in reality are not constant.) Ricardo also belongs to that category. Other economists worked in a more or less Smithian tradition (though it should be noted that Smith was a much better economist than many of them) by assuming that capitalism as a system tended to produce better results for everyone. By way of also answering >>7206356's question, Austrian economics is basically the Panglossian version of this - a wholly philosophical, ideological, and near-religious argument about the sanctity of property and trade, complete with its own creation myth (look up "Crusoe economics"). There were economists under the Austrian tradition who contributed good ideas (Menger came up with the idea behind Marshall curves before Marshall did) but as a whole it is completely reasonable to consider that entire body of economic thinkers as unfalsifiable bunk.

Kalecki and Keynes took some of the very earliest useful empirical observations (namely the marginal propensity to consume, and its relationship to income), threw out many of the old assumptions about the monetary system and its relationship to the real economy, brought focus to a few theoretical arguments that were long-accepted as tautological and figured out how to make them practical (most importantly, S=I), rejected Say's Law (as had Marx, years earlier, of course), and completely revolutionized the field of economics. Like all economists before him, Keynes's ideas included some simplifications that did not perfectly apply to real life, but he was so much closer than anyone before him that the difference is truly monumental.

Of course, some people wanted to leave behind the newfound empiricism of Keynes's economics and return to the purely philosophical capitalism-boosterism of the Austrian school and others, hence Hayek. The fact that Hayek is still popular is absolutely hilarious, akin to having a massive online community of Lamarckian evolutionists that still affect political discourse on biology. Econ still has a long way to go towards being a science but Keynes was a huge step in the right direction, and Hayek wanted nothing more than to step back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:46:27 2015 No.7206549 >>7206016 Turns out the system of private property guarantees the means of production won't be divided among too many people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:47:14 2015 No.7206551 >>7206516 People still like Hayek because of his politics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:48:21 2015 No.7206555 File: 81 KB, 800x509, Sowell spurdo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206549 As opposed to what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:50:07 2015 No.7206559 >>7206555 As opposed to any system that actually guarantees freedom in Hayek's terms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:51:21 2015 No.7206564 File: 120 KB, 304x323, Sowell.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206559 Such as?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:52:25 2015 No.7206568 >>7206356 You mean other than that they explicitly disregard data?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:54:07 2015 No.7206574 >>7206429 We had to take analysis and algebra m8, hence the > math part

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 21:56:04 2015 No.7206577 >>7206564 Catalonia between 1936 and 1939.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:04:55 2015 No.7206622 >>7206577 >where people were literally forced into collectivism at gunpoint

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:11:29 2015 No.7206639

>>7206356

Give them the empirical evidence of any country that has implemented their policies of free trade, hard(er) money, privatization, liberalization, etc. in recent history. The trend is predictable: deindustrialization, financializaation, and ultimately depopulation / emigration. The reasons why are easily explainable: these free market reforms destroy the national competitiveness of high-wage paying industrial jobs, unless wages sink to a level substantially below that of their competitors, while redirecting capital into equities (which has ultimate manifestation of productivity in the real economy), real estate (wherein land absorbs the bulk of the capital investment, leading to little else other than speculation and a rise in the cost of living), or to other countries that actually have profitable, large-scale business activities other than finance and real estate.

Austrians tend to turn their ears off after economic analysis moves past the most superficial stage, and will accuse you of obscurantism and intellectual elitism because they either refuse to consider your arguments or are incapable of doing so. Example: tell them that prices are sticky downwards because, as a general rule, businesses would rather cut costs when demand lags rather than fulfill their macro-economically beneficial role by lowering their prices to adjust to the new money supply. To this, they will respond that you are an "aggregationist", or "using blanket statements"; "you can't predict the behavior of entrepreneurial activity", etc.

I used to be an austro-libertarian and dedicated a good chunk of my life on internet forums defending the notion that libertarianism, if properly put into effect, was the most revolutionary and anti-elitist program conceivable. Then I read a bit about 19th century American populist programs; their worst enemy was the gold standard. I read more; free trade always caused wage drops. Even more; land rents have no corresponding effect in output, deflation is what kills the poor, not inflation. Basically everything I had learned and rehearsed was bullshit.

If you start to make an indentation, they will say "But the enforcement of the policies required to counter-act this would be ineffectual or counterproductive!" Shifting goalposts in other words. The worst of them will not make any intellectual concession which implies that their perfect and lovingly constructed ethical framework would result in anything other than heaven on earth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:14:16 2015 No.7206651 >>7206622 Forcing "people" (the bourgeoise) at gunpoint into collectivism sounds like a pretty effective method to guarantee freedom in Hayek's terms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:14:18 2015 No.7206652 >>7206639 Some people that you can show to the libertarian itching to leave home: Arthur Kitson, Henry George, Henry Carey

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:14:37 2015 No.7206653 >>7206622 It was more cinematic than literal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:17:12 2015 No.7206661 >>7206651 >"people" (the bourgeoise) Typical commie misanthropy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:18:39 2015 No.7206665 >>7206661 individualism is more misanthropic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:19:34 2015 No.7206667 >>7206082 Most erudite of baits my friend.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:21:28 2015 No.7206672 I study plenty and all it's done is make me despise libertarians

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:21:47 2015 No.7206673 >>7206639 Are you saying you oppose free trade in the year 2015?

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:22:37 2015 No.7206675

>>7206661
>commie
*anarchist

Let's see who's more of a misanthrope:

>The one that thinks it is evil to do something against the few that own everything and starve the rest forcing them to work their asses all day.

>The one who thinks it is not ok to let a few individuals monopolize all the means of production

Anyway, you nice job swiftly changing the subject when you realizedHayek's quote is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:23:29 2015 No.7206677 >>7206639 (which has *no ultimate manifestation of productivity in the real economy)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:23:45 2015 No.7206678 >>7206667 > what is the internet > what are computers

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:24:07 2015 No.7206679 >>7206665 You're 100% right. I'm an individualist, btw.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:24:08 2015 No.7206680 >>7206675 I'm not the anon you were talking to, sorry for the confusion. I imagine he's still typing a response.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:24:55 2015 No.7206681 >>7206675 You're starting from false premises. This is basically a straw man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:25:10 2015 No.7206682 >>7206680 Oh, ok.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:26:53 2015 No.7206688 >>7206681 Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:28:10 2015 No.7206692 File: 16 KB, 543x469, 10377526_929396450411673_2564105857544649623_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206675 >is against monopolization >is for the state

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:28:30 2015 No.7206695 >>7206667 cry more bitch nigga

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:28:55 2015 No.7206696 >>7206692 >>is for the state >anarchism

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:31:45 2015 No.7206702 >>7206097 Do you not realize that every truly free market that has ever existed has failed miserably? Study history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:32:02 2015 No.7206703 File: 3 KB, 99x91, gary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206692 >>7206696 Oops, sorry, forgot a funny reaction face to complement my post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:32:52 2015 No.7206710 >>7206702 Define "truly free" market.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:35:13 2015 No.7206716
File: 95 KB, 916x916, 1417577106094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7206016
>Federal Reserve economists Andrew Chang and Phillip Li looked at 67 papers in 13 reputable academic journals. Their findings were shocking. Without the help of the authors, only a third of the results could be independently replicated. Even with the author's help, only about half, or 49%, could. Business Insider reports: "It's a pretty massive issue for economics, especially given the impact that the subject has on public policy. Li and Chang use a well-known paper by Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff as an example. The study showed a significant growth drop-off once a country's national debts reached 90% of gross domestic product, but three years after being published the study was found to contain a significant Microsoft Excel error that changed the magnitude of the effect."

http://uk.businessinsider
.com/federal-reserve-paper-on-the-replicability-of-economic-studies-2015-10

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:35:16 2015 No.7206717 >>7206692 There's a difference between the state, which is made up of representatives who are voted in and who are held accountable for their actions, and private monopolies whose power and influence far exceeds any government's.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:41:36 2015 No.7206741

>>7206717
>politicians
>held accountable for their actions

Oh, I am laffin. Politicians can implement completely destructive policies and no one even notices.

The entire point of the market is that businesses are immediately accountable for their actions. Also, private monopolies are socialist unicorns.

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:43:11 2015 No.7206744 >>7206026 God damn Socialists btfo

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:47:03 2015 No.7206750

>>7206076
>posts an image of von mises
>"Not having to worry about the lessons of history or how national economies function"
You're fucking kidding me right? Von mises explicitly doesn't give a fuck about those things.
"The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience"

Why are austrians so fucking ignorant? The /pol/tards of economics. They don't even read their own school, they just spout a couple of memes they learned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:48:39 2015 No.7206752 File: 32 KB, 500x343, hayek mises.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206750 >von mises

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:49:09 2015 No.7206754 >>7206703 I reacted too quickly. My mistake. >>7206702 What "truly free markets" are you referring to?

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:49:13 2015 No.7206755

>>7206016
>all of that ideology.
Also, feudalism and autorcracies could have similar distributions of power. Divisions of power may be a necessary step to a healthy society, but it hardly makes a solid case for capitalism as we know it.

>>7206026
>lesmugreactionaryquote.jpg
You could go back and attribute this quote to any person opposing any kind of social change (slavery, women in the work force, universal healthcare) and it would fit.

Yeah I'm triggered. All libertarians should kill themselves tbh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:49:48 2015 No.7206756 >>7206750 Shit, it's hayek, they are too similar in their old pics. The post is still valid though, since they are all praxeologists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:51:26 2015 No.7206759 >>7206752 >using evidence Terrible austrian tbh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:53:14 2015 No.7206763 File: 305 KB, 468x435, 1435959537664.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206755 >capitalism as we know it >defended by anyone >hayek >reactionary

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:53:31 2015 No.7206764 I'd be surprised of any of you had enough axe left to chop a toothpick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:55:35 2015 No.7206769 >>7206763 >scientifically obscurantist >pro corporate tyranny >not reactionary

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:55:58 2015 No.7206772 The sole problem in economics is that no one really knows what they are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:56:36 2015 No.7206774 >>7206769 http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 22:57:35 2015 No.7206775 >>7206769 reactionary is one of the worst defined terms in politics

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:06:41 2015 No.7206812 >>7206717 Government regulation has created far more monopolies than it's ever destroyed m8

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:10:42 2015 No.7206828 >>7206774 Pretty uninteresting read that doesn't address any of the points. I did find it funny reading a radical apriorist accuse socialists of being rationalists though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:15:09 2015 No.7206847 >>7206812 ... do you think that someone supporting regulations to prevent monopoly supports regulations to create monopoly?

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:18:09 2015 No.7206861

>>7206016
>>7206026
Reminder that Hayek got so badly destroyed by Sraffa that he left the economics profession behind entirely and started writing books about political philosophy. He also went and supported Pinochet, a dictator while claiming to be libertarian.

>Austrian economics
not even once

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:21:08 2015 No.7206871 >>7206861 He didn't even respond to Keynes about countercyclicality or the business cycle. He just wrote a completely indecipherable tract on capital structure, from which he even later admitted no coherent message could be gleaned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:24:27 2015 No.7206878 >>7206847 He's mindlessly repeating the von mises institute like a drone, as austrians usually do. >>7206861 >Sraffa Now there's an underrated economist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:25:47 2015 No.7206883 >>7206119 This is ideology

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:26:48 2015 No.7206887 >>7206847 >regulations to prevent monopolies Like what exactly m8? Government agencies are how highway traffic and airlines became monopolies. Standard Oil trust was created because of government regulations on the size of corporations

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:27:04 2015 No.7206888 >>7206861 >>7206878 Sraffa owns, if there was any justice in the world he'd have the sort of cult following that only the dorkus libertarian economists seem to have

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:28:52 2015 No.7206891 >>7206887 >Government agencies are how highway traffic and airlines became monopolies. Standard Oil trust was created because of government regulations on the size of corporations "everything is the gubmint's fault" Kek fuck off

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:32:19 2015 No.7206896 >>7206887 Explain how an industry with decreasing marginal costs doesn't lead to monopolies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:33:56 2015 No.7206904 >>7206871 Keynes changed his theory so many times it would have been a waste of breath to respond to him in any meaningful way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:36:47 2015 No.7206910 >>7206904 Proof? Beyond just that he shifted terminology?

>>	Thomas Wed Oct 7 23:37:00 2015 No.7206911 Is your definition of "health and prosperity", secular? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCOTa6rnlI

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:37:30 2015 No.7206912 >>7206891 Nice argument m8. I accept your resignation. Private corporations go to the government when they need special privileges and protections which only government can give. That is why lobbies exist fuckwit

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:41:44 2015 No.7206923 Only an ideologue studies one subject and concludes it's the most important.

Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:42:47 2015 No.7206924

>>7206912
>Private corporations go to the government when they need special privileges and protections which only government can give.

Only corporations in a privileged position can do so. Government power doesn't exist in a vacuum. Bam, refuted, I accept your resignation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:43:10 2015 No.7206928 >>7206775 Reactionary = Counter-revolutionary

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:45:21 2015 No.7206936 >>7206928 Yeah, and how fucking broad is counter-revolutionary?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:46:02 2015 No.7206940 At what age did you realize "the gubmint is evil and corporations are saints" retards are worse than obama voters?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:50:42 2015 No.7206948 >>7206639 You sound like you know what you're talking about. Any book recs for an econ pleb?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:53:02 2015 No.7206957 >>7206639 >Austrians tend to turn their ears off after economic analysis moves past the most superficial stage AKA once you begin applying ideas to reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:54:06 2015 No.7206959 >>7206936 Not broad at all. Revolution is pretty well defined.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 7 23:59:43 2015 No.7206972 >>7206924 Only companies with adequate size of enterprise. I.e. most companies listed on the nyse

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:02:17 2015 No.7206978

>>7206936
>A counter-revolutionary is anyone who opposes a revolution, particularly those who act after a revolution to try to overturn or reverse it, in full or in part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolutionary

Reactionaries are members of the Reaction. Most counterrevolutionaries are fairly conservative, and since the Revolution is the extension of Progress ergo reactionaries are against Progress. It's an interesting thing to note how both Austrians and Marxists accuse each other of being reactionaries, of being enemies of Progress. On the one side, Austrians argue that Marxist protectionism stifles growth and is a continuation of the practices of feudal absolutism, on the other, Marxist argue that Austrians' neoliberal reforms preserve feudal social relations by creating economic dependency.

Personally, I don't like the idea of using 'Reactionary' becoming just another slur against liberal Progress, as just another byword for conservatism, when Progress is just an abstract fetish. I would prefer to use the word as a synonym for enemies of Revolution, counter-revolutionaries.

>>7206959
this

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:02:44 2015 No.7206981

>>7206948
Not him but read Piketty's Capital. Good introduction to many ideas by a mainstream economist.

>>7206972
Yep, they have power, and so reducing everything to "muh gubmintz r bad" is a potent and stupid oversimplification.

If we just "eliminated" government power, that black hole would instantly be filled. Power can't be eliminated in that sense. We'd just have debt slavery and other horrible things like places in India have.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:05:42 2015 No.7206993 >>7206940 Government is literally responsible for 75 percent of the problems in the modern state. These cancerous institutions are consuming half our net production and squandering it all

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:13:50 2015 No.7207016 >>7206981 >pikikey Why am I not fucking surprised?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:20:32 2015 No.7207031 >>7206981 >the only two options are to eliminate government altogether or let it do whatever the fuck it pleases Based retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:28:35 2015 No.7207052 >>7207016 >>7207031 think of it like this: if a retard can refute an austrian, where does this leave the austrian?

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:34:31 2015 No.7207061

>>7207031
>Based retard

Considering government literally has to have power in order to even be government, yeah, it's kind of hard to not let it have power. What matters is how that power is expressed.

I'm not the one with the simpleton views, and trying to perform a reductio ad absurdum on like one sentence just makes you look like a retard. Use words.

>>7207016
>quotes Hayek
>shits on Piketty

Why am I not fucking surprised? Being surprised isn't an argument. I accept your resignation.

>>7206993
>Government is literally responsible for 75 percent of the problems in the modern state.

[citation needed]

>These cancerous institutions are consuming half our net production and squandering it all

[citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:36:20 2015 No.7207064 >>>/biz/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:38:15 2015 No.7207068 File: 91 KB, 1280x720, 1420765246357.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7206940 Everybody is terrible, bud. Don't really matter. Stoicize and forget

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:39:14 2015 No.7207070 >>7206910 Listen to Hayek himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqU-AZh-wqU

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:43:20 2015 No.7207077 >economics >important Come back to me when your theories are decent enough to be predictive.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:44:45 2015 No.7207080

>>7207061

government shouldn't be meddling in the economy to begin with m8

>>7207061

Pikikey's work is full of factual errors if you actually research his footnotes. Even his core formula is mathematically flawed. See here:

http://policytensor.com/2015/04/04/why-the-rate-of-return-exceeds-the-growth-rate/

Government consumes nearly 50 percent of the GDP in the following countries:

France
United States
England
Sweden
England
Denmark

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/countries-with-the-highest-government-spending-to-gdp-ratio.aspx

As for waste, it's pretty much inseparable from spending, because government bureaucracy does not exist in spite of waste but in consequence of it:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:47:12 2015 No.7207085 File: 12 KB, 251x242, 1433517539651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >it's a Marxists call everyone that disagrees with them Reactionary thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:48:22 2015 No.7207089 >>7207080 >government shouldn't be meddling in the economy to begin with m8 why not? governments are necessarily connected to and involved with economies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:50:18 2015 No.7207096 >>7206153 Yeah dude you're probably right man it was that simple. Case closed.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:51:27 2015 No.7207099

>>7207089

you can have a market that is largely free of government regulations. Government has to control the money supply, sure, but that policy should be restricted to keeping inflation under control.

Government has plenty of other duties. When you start involving government what you get are regulatory agencies which feed directly off the loss of profitability in the private sector to perpetuate their own parasitic bureaucracies. Eventually you wind up with income redistribution and the whole gamut of socialized commerce.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:53:27 2015 No.7207105

>>7207080
>government shouldn't be meddling in the economy to begin with m8
You're right, Rome should have never built the roads that made it's entire economy possible

>Pikikey's work is full of factual errors if you actually research his footnotes. Even his core formula is mathematically flawed. See here:

You said this exact same shit blogpost last time.

>hur hur this guy linked some graphs and claims Piketty's numbers are bad
>therefore they are

If Piketty's numbers were really that bad, he would have been eviscerated in academia. But he hasn't been, only fringe blogposters seem to find error. Funny how that works right

>academia is a conspiracy

Always with you retards.

>>7207085
>accusing people of Marxist who aren't self-described

most left-wing economics are not based on Marxism, Marxism is pretty fringe tbh dude.

>>7207089
Because he's a retard ideologue who constantly espouses his bullshit libertarianism on /lit/. He needs to be banned and contained to /pol/ where he's likely from.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:53:51 2015 No.7207107 >>7207085 most of this thread is keynsians arguing with austrians tbh fam

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:55:34 2015 No.7207115 remember when Marx wrote: 'Labour will become now only a means of life, but also the highest want in life."

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:55:54 2015 No.7207116

>>7207099
>you can have a market that is largely free of government regulations.
Sure, like that debt slavery in India. Largely free of government regulations so I can have child sex slaves with no hassle.

Free markets in the Smith sense don't fucking work unless if essential goods are all provided and people have leisure time to be educated on markets. Information is necessary to free markets, and most goods we have we are very ignorant about (>implying you're not as bad as anyone else)

Also most free market success stories actually rely on market inefficiencies such as financial markets abusing arbitrage and other faults, which unless if you plan on implementing a global trade government cannot be avoided

You're not advocating big government, are you?

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:56:15 2015 No.7207119

>>7207089

most arguments in favor of government intervention and regulation fall under two kinds of justification

either

government must regulate the economy because the economy is subject to fluctuations and excesses (which is true, but it by no means follows that government can fix these; indeed, government is often far more wasteful than the private sector)

or

the government must intervene because the private market has failed (which is nonsense, and moreover it ignores the fact that government's record of failure is by no means good, on the contrary; and government programs which fail are almost never shut down, but instead expanded)

as you can see, neither argument holds water

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:56:22 2015 No.7207120

>>7207080
How does showing the composition of government spending prove that the spending is wasteful? Where did you prove that government shouldn't intervene on the economy?
Have you read piketty? Be honest.

>>7207099
Your knowledge of economics is so low that you are almost incoherent, apply yourself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:57:16 2015 No.7207122

>>7207107
>most of this thread is keynsians arguing with austrians tbh fam
Most of this thread is people who have never cracked an economics textbook quoting economists they haven't read, classifying entire schools around names in times when those schools don't influence anything, and in general being fucking retarded.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:58:51 2015 No.7207126
File: 22 KB, 300x100, 4chan tbh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7207122
>Most of this thread is people who have never cracked an economics textbook quoting economists they haven't read, classifying entire schools around names in times when those schools don't influence anything, and in general being fucking retarded.
just like the rest of this board tbh fam smh

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:59:00 2015 No.7207127
File: 10 KB, 181x182, 1440315072736.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7207105

There's no interest in errors of Pikikey's works among academic economists for the same reason there's no interest in the factual inaccuracies of the bible among divinity school professors.

Glad to see you're still unwilling to even read anything that doesn't conform to your preconceived notions.

>>7207105

>he needs to be banned for disagreeing with me!

just add a fucking trip already so I can filter your deluded ass

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 00:59:36 2015 No.7207129

>>7207120
>Your knowledge of economics is so low that you are almost incoherent, apply yourself.
Yeah but this is the entirety of libertarianism. I would honestly classify Piketty as a right-wing economist because he's so in favor of free markets throughout his book.

>>7207119
Basing government intervention about what happens within markets is a stupid way to view the question to begin with. We allow government intervention because we're humane and care about each other and because when you price essential goods in the market, you're literally producing slavery.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:00:51 2015 No.7207133 >freedom is good because I like it

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:01:15 2015 No.7207137

>>7207127
>Glad to see you're still unwilling to even read anything that doesn't conform to your preconceived notions.
I'll read it once you have read Piketty.

>just add a fucking trip already so I can filter your deluded ass
/lit/ - Literature

not

/lit/ - Libertarians

>>7207126
Some educated people are on here though.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:01:37 2015 No.7207139

>>7207116

>information is necessary to free markets

then why the fuck are you socialist types so hell bent on having a tiny group of people run the entire market when the knowledge they have can never amount to a fraction of all the knowledge which is necessary to run a fucking market in the first fucking place?

you imbecile. the soviet union had 3.4 million prices. what kind of fucking economic planning committee is going to be able to sit down and price 3.4 million items? and keep them priced correctly in relation to one another?

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:04:16 2015 No.7207146

>>7207120

Evidently I have a firmer grasp of economics than you because I don't advocate for the kind of policies which have a clear record of failure throughout history. Free markets and free trade are directly responsible for the prosperity which lets all of sit here arguing on the fucking computer at 2am.

Just compare mainland China to Hong Kong. Look at how people vote with their feet.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:05:57 2015 No.7207149

>>7207139
>then why the fuck are you socialist types so hell bent on having a tiny group of people run the entire market when the knowledge they have can never amount to a fraction of all the knowledge which is necessary to run a fucking market in the first fucking place?
>small committee actually knowledable on knee joint manufacture and quality
>they can order joint replacements for the average person who can't know so much

wow so fucking hard

>you imbecile. the soviet union had 3.4 million prices. what kind of fucking economic planning committee is going to be able to sit down and price 3.4 million items? and keep them priced correctly in relation to one another?
I am in support of free markets; I don't think you get it. Stop trying to turn every sentence you possibly can into a strawman->reductio ad absurdum combo. It's your only method of argumentation and it's really boring (besides posturing, quoting authorities you don't understand and in general being a fucking idiot)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:06:13 2015 No.7207150 >>7207137 >people who agree with me are clearly educated Or just as brainwashed by liberal pseudo-economics as you. Did you even read The Wealth of Nations? Be honest m8

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:06:51 2015 No.7207151

>>7206948

I can't really think of any books that really explain everything in one fell swoop. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations kind of gives you the basic idea of Capitalism and then you have to keep reading and reading to figure out how it doesn't quite work that way. I can give you a list of stuff to read however on particular topics if you want.
On Money / Banking / Debt - Frederick Soddy's The Role of Money an Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, Irving Fisher's 100% Money, Stephen Zarlenga's The Lost Science of Money,

On Land - Henry George's Progress and Poverty (fun read but very ideological)

On Trade - Ian Fletcher's Free Trade Doesn't Work, Erik Reinert's How Rich Countries Got Rich, Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans

That's a pretty good list if you want to develop very strong opinions in a very short amount of time. There are other books that would give you a more complete understanding of the topic; these books are very specific, focused, and slightly polemic, but I don't see anything wrong with that as long as the reasoning here is sound.

It's better to get an overall understanding of an economy, and then to read these books to get the "...but that's wrong!" idea.

Of all of these, Soddy is the most important. He is absolutely the most overlooked intellectual in history and we are only just now after about eight decades coming to realize that everything he said was right.

>>7206981

I haven't read Piketty but his conclusions on policy give me extreme misgivings on reading his book. If he has a sophisticated understanding of the economy and why it allocates wealth the way it does, then surely he would put forward policy proposals that negate or counter-act those mechanisms? Why does he just say "Keep everything the way it is, except throw a global tax on top of it."? For one, that is extremely lazy and unrealistic. Secondly, I wouldn't even want that to come true, despite recognizing that r > g. Nothing about reforming our laws on money, banking, trade, land, labor? Why not?

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:08:05 2015 No.7207153

>>7207146
>Free markets and free trade are directly responsible for the prosperity which lets all of sit here arguing on the fucking computer at 2am.
This is hilarious because asides from the transistor, literally every aspect of computer technology was developed in public university and funded by tax money.

>Just compare mainland China to Hong Kong. Look at how people vote with their feet.

New York is also much nicer than most of the US, maybe because Wall Street is their and the people fucking over America want a nice place to live. Wow, such a great example, if only everything were Wall Street then the economy would be so great

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:08:39 2015 No.7207155 >>7207149 You can be in favor of free markets OR you can be in favor of government regulation of the markets. Can't be in favor of both.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:09:44 2015 No.7207157 >>7207151 Because he's a crypto-socialist and the closest thing to a meme economist that exists today.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:10:03 2015 No.7207159

>>7207150
>Did you even read The Wealth of Nations? Be honest m8
Nope, and I know in response to that you're going to drivel on about bullshit. I've read enough to get an idea of his arguments and I've read quite a bit about his ideas on markets though

>at least one of us is honest in this discussion

Stop being so mad, chill out. I know you're probably hurt, suffering inside and you've locked into this libertarian economics thing because it's at least giving you some answer to cling to, but you've got it wrong. Just breathe deep and read more.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:11:10 2015 No.7207163

>>7207139
First, socialism and central planning have nothing to do with each other. Second, the soviet union managed prices according to production costs, and shifted production according to stock variations.

>>7207146
Where did i write about what policies i advocate? If you are unable to present arguments just say so instead of shifting the discussion. We know your position is purely ideological anyway.

>Just compare mainland China to Hong Kong.
I did my major thesis on the asian "miracle". South east asia developed with extremely interventionist governments. Far more interventionist than what you are used to call socialist. If those kind of policies were to be applied today you would probably call the policymakers communists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:11:18 2015 No.7207164 >>7207153 technology =/= prosperity and where the hell do you suppose all those delicious tax dollars came from? did the government produce them with magic, or did it siphon them from the private market?

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:11:50 2015 No.7207165

>>7207151
>I haven't read Piketty but his conclusions on policy give me extreme misgivings on reading his book. If he has a sophisticated understanding of the economy and why it allocates wealth the way it does, then surely he would put forward policy proposals that negate or counter-act those mechanisms? Why does he just say "Keep everything the way it is, except throw a global tax on top of it."? For one, that is extremely lazy and unrealistic. Secondly, I wouldn't even want that to come true, despite recognizing that r > g. Nothing about reforming our laws on money, banking, trade, land, labor? Why not?
He wants to implement a global wealth tax that just taxes sitting capital. Of course that implies a global government but hey, a global government is what the libertarians want because you can't eliminate arbitrage (aka the #1 exploited market inefficiency and what makes wall street functional) without one

>>7207155
That's not true. Just stop. Go do something else. The adults are talking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:13:32 2015 No.7207168 >>7207165 Mate have you read anything not by Krugman or Pikeky? Did you major or even minor in economics? Let's try a little test. Explain the Greek debt crisis, where it came from, and how you would solve it. You have 5 minutes.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:13:38 2015 No.7207170

>>7206516
>"tendency for the rate of profit to decline" was simply wrong unless you held constant several things that in reality are not constant.
literally the opposite is true, in regards to input/output prices. which is why Okishio's conclusions were shown to be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:13:49 2015 No.7207172 >>7207070 Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my time. He doesn't say anything about Keynes changing his theory or why he couldn't respond to it

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:14:20 2015 No.7207174

>>7207157
If Piketty is a socialist, then I am too.

>>7207164
>and where the hell do you suppose all those delicious tax dollars came from? did the government produce them with magic, or did it siphon them from the private market?
They were mostly taken from the income of Americans and then given to private corporations who used it to turn a profit.

>technology =/= prosperity
Actually the two are pretty well correlated. But you probably mean some specific metric of prosperity, not the colloquial sense of the word (like any true libertarian, how you play with the words to produce equivocations in the mind of the stupid is how you win debate)

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:15:59 2015 No.7207177

>>7207172

he pretty clearly said that Keynes moved away from the ideas expressed in his earlier books in moving towards his new general theory.

Hayek though the general theory would fail and Keynes would discard it, so he never undertook to discredit it. Mostly it was the doctrinaire pupils of Keynes that screwed everything up, because after Keynes died they applied his general theory to a completely different set of circumstances

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:16:05 2015 No.7207178

>>7207168
>Explain the Greek debt crisis, where it came from, and how you would solve it.
If I had to take a random guess, analysts failing to do their job rating Greek debt properly. Which happens all the time because analysts are pressured by financial markets to be more optimistic.

>>7207172
>still quibbling over Hayek/Keynes

Literally nobody today cares about either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:18:57 2015 No.7207184 >>7207168 Why are ignorant people so arrogant? Is it the dunning kruger effect?

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:20:55 2015 No.7207197

>>7207178

So where did the debt come from?

I'll make this one a multiple choice for you

Was it:

A). Failure to enforce the tax code and collect taxes owed
B). Out of control government spending on lavish pension plans and benefit programs due to political wrangling
C). Inability of Greece to inflate its currency due to being part of the Euro Zone
D). All of the above

You have 5 minutes. This test counts for 90% of your final grade.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:21:29 2015 No.7207199 >>7207105 >Marxist academia >wanting to find error with Equality boasting Basic Income advocate. Sure thing bud.. Next you'll be telling us that there is a grant to study what percentage of western women are not simply whores.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:23:29 2015 No.7207203

>>7207168

You're an embarassment bro

>>7207165

>He wants to implement a global wealth tax that just taxes sitting capital. Of course that implies a global government but hey, a global government is what the libertarians want

I know and that sounds like a terrible policy. For one, as you say it requires a global government which is probably the nightmare reality we're currently heading for. Two, you could implement policies in your own country that prevented capital flight or, instead of just grabbing the money and putting it in the government, actually funnel that sitting capital toward productive investments that end up paying wages.

Moreover, it maintains the whole narrative of "rich people = bad, big daddy government = good", where the government skims their wealth and hands it out to the little people, without even questioning whether that wealth is legitimately earned in the first place, whether the type of economy that funnels wealth to the top 1% is legitimate in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:24:07 2015 No.7207205 >>7207197 Spain has no big tax collection problems and had fiscal surpluses for years before their debt crisis. Nice try though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:25:26 2015 No.7207209 >>7207205 >>7207205 Not asking about the crisis now, just the debt. You get a E for Effort

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:27:20 2015 No.7207217 >>7207203 What's wrong with a flat income tax m8? Apart from whatever ethical bullshit quibbles you might have

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:27:31 2015 No.7207220 >>7206026 I don't get it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:28:17 2015 No.7207223 >>7207209 The causes you assume for the debt have counterexamples when you look at other indebted countries. And stop writing like a retard.

>>	Thomas Thu Oct 8 01:29:03 2015 No.7207225 >>7207217 Most plans for it, such as Forbes' and Ron Paul's, exempt capital gains from taxation.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:29:40 2015 No.7207227

>>7207220

Basically economists since the 18th century have been trying to design social institutions (including the market) to suit their whims. Hayek argues that social institutions have developed through a process of selection of the successful, without people necessarily knowing why it was successful, and this applies to market.

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

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:30:53 2015 No.7207231 >>7207227 >social darwinism Just when i thought austrians couldn't get more antiscientific. The same argument could be applied to states too, which is hilarious.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:30:54 2015 No.7207232

>>7207225

Why distinguish between capital gains and income?

That seems to be the loophole that is most commonly exploited by high net worth individuals. They take a paltry salary so as to place themselves in the lowest tax bracket and thereby pay the lowest capital gains tax.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:31:39 2015 No.7207234 >>7207227 Oh thanks

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:33:11 2015 No.7207236

>>7207197
>So where did the debt come from?
The simple answer is "they offered it and people bought it", but I don't really need to hear your response because I already know you think it's the governments fault (whether Greek or UN idc)

>>7207199
>>Marxist academia
You do realize by saying this you blow yourself the fuck out entirely, right?

It shows you've never stepped foot once into an economics department of any respected university.

>>7207203
>I know and that sounds like a terrible policy. For one, as you say it requires a global government which is probably the nightmare reality we're currently heading for.
It's the logical response to the inefficiencies we experience today. If you want to defeat Walmart you have to knock it off it's crutch, which is essentially arbitrage in labor between China and America

>Two, you could implement policies in your own country that prevented capital flight or, instead of just grabbing the money and putting it in the government, actually funnel that sitting capital toward productive investments that end up paying wages.
I'm actually for global liberalization, as long as it benefits all people (aka we implement a system that promotes growth over financialization)

>Moreover, it maintains the whole narrative of "rich people = bad, big daddy government = good", where the government skims their wealth and hands it out to the little people, without even questioning whether that wealth is legitimately earned in the first place, whether the type of economy that funnels wealth to the top 1% is legitimate in the first place.
The whole idea isn't that wealth = bad, it doesn't even punish rich people. It just puts incentive for them to use the capital to promote growth. That's why Piketty is a right-wing economist. He's just interested in real growth. He's like the most right wing you can be and still be sane

>>7207217
>What's wrong with a flat income tax m8?
Income isn't flat in regards to value added in gross output of a company.

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:34:38 2015 No.7207243

>>7207227
Even if social darwinism is true, the conclusion that you're leading us to (aka it's fate and we're market failures and should accept our place) is a bad one and one I'll resist.

It's just as social darwinist if i pick up the guns and murder the rich as them "winning" at markets. We both want artifical contraints, but if they don't respect mine i won't respect theirs

Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:34:56 2015 No.7207244

>>7207217

Because, my point is, why should we just settle for a system that takes the wealth we create and gives it up to the top and at the end of the year the government gives it back to us, when we could create an economy with an actual higher degree of personal autonomy. Piketty's proposal has no personal dignity to it. Besides you'd still have the same amount of bargaining power at your job.

Whereas if you were to refashion economic policy at a national level so that you did away with private credit creation, debt-money, unrestricted free trade and capital flows, privatized economic rents, unregulated labor markets, etc. you could have an economy where all of its participants could be proud of it and benefitted from it in such a way that lots of them owned business, their own land, assets, had strong bargaining power at work, lots of leisure time, etc.

Piketty's thing leaves the economy as "Here's this gigantic fucking problem that we have to drain off every year or else everything goes to hell"

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 8 01:35:20 2015 No.7207245 >>7207231 >All this meme logic Social Darwinism is the idea that fitness SHOULD determine selection Hayek is simply saying that insofar as social institution are concerned, fitness tends to determine selection, because defective systems tend to fail

>>	Thomas Thu Oct 8 01:36:21 2015 No.7207247 >>7207232 >Why distinguish between capital gains and income? >That seems to be the loophole that is most commonly exploited by high net worth individuals. You just answered your own question. But their answer is that it promotes investment.

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