/sci/ - Science & Math

I took a couple economics courses last year.
Too much guess work and approximations. Should be more heavy on mathematics, less heavy on graphs.

>>3101650
>>3101639

Sup

>>3101650
higher economics is almost all math, or statistics. Whichis actually where it gets a lot of criticism, by dressing itself in fancy numbers and ignoring the realities its trying to approximate.

>>3101650
ahhaha you need to take more econ classes.

>>3101666
That criticism probably all stems from people like journalists who have trouble understanding it

>>3101666

Correct.

>>3101654

Hello.

>>3101666

actually not at all.

>>3101695

excuse me, meant to quote

>>3101675

have more taleb.

>>3101675

Actually most criticism stems from economists who claim that modern econometricians ignore that Capital, goods and labor are Heterogenous and can't be represented with a single variable K, over-simplify things and pull aggregates out of their ass.

>>3101704

> defines keynesians, and only keynesians correctly

Duh.

the girls love my invisible hand.

>economics
>assumption: people act rationally
>laughingwhores.jpg

I've always been sceptical of economics. It's too many aproximations and guesses and not enough math. I'm also sceptical about whether it's possible to accurately predict a complex system with many variables like the economy.

>>3101714

> implying what you feel is irrational is factually accurate

Oh you!

>>3101714
We are working on this one.

While there anomalies as a general idea and basic assumption it works rather well. The danger lies in more complex and detailed problems where the underlying model has to become more complex as well.

>>3101721
Economics is similar to weather. No matter how much education and math going on, you are still working with inaccurate systems.

>>3101721
The economy is less complex than the universe we are in.

Physics are rather stable but economists have the problem that the world changes faster and faster while the academics have problems following these developments.

>>3101714
Their definition of rationality:
1. Complete and transitive preferences
2. The person acts according to 1.

On 1, complete and trantitive merely mean that a person is able to rank their preferences, and be consist with this ranking (apples over oranges, oranges over bananas, and thus apples over bananas).
It is a much simpler and more precise assumption than most people think when they hear "everyone is rational hurrrrr"

>>3101746

> references the state as the problem without knowing it

>>3101754

>Dat axiom of human action
>Dat marginal utility

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

>>3101639
The study of psychological manipulation may be god tier. Economics, is not.

Another Keynes quote, showing how fucking god tier this discipline is:
"Professor [Max] Planck, of Berlin, the famous originator of the Quantum Theory, once remarked to me that in early life he had thought of studying economics, but had found it too difficult! Professor Planck could easily master the whole corpus of mathematical economics in a few days. He did not mean that! But the amalgam of logic and intuition and the wide knowledge of facts, most of which are not precise, which is required for economic interpretation in its highest form is, quite truly, overwhelmingly difficult for those whose gift mainly consists in the power to imagine and pursue to their furthest points the implications and prior conditions of comparatively simple facts which are known with a high degree of precision."

I wound up studying economics because it combines hard science and social science in an interesting way.

>>3101880
>>3101880
captcha: same, noNews

The economy is driven by human action, not human design.

Freakonomics falls in the line of god tier for being freakishly economical.

>>3101928

Freakonomics admits that if you abort all black babies crime will go down.

> i am more than okay with this

>>3101935
In general homogeneous culture is more stable than heterogeneous.

If I had time to do 3 majors economics would be the third one (about to finish up the math degree, second would be comp sci).

>>3101951
bullshit. in general diversity, in all regards, is more stable

>>3101935
some statistics and conclusion are somewhat fuzzy but overall it gives an excellent overview of applied microeconomics in daily life.

>>3101955

> implying diversity is anything more than an emotional want
> implying diversity has an argument past it is better because it is better

As an academic subject, it's extremely easy because there's vanishingly little you can establish with any degree of rigour. The valid findings of the science of economics would it in a small pamphlet and are commonly all reinvented by random uneducated individuals briefly musing on matters of commerce, poverty, or human desire in general, without them thinking they have done anything special.

As a profession, it's difficult to persuade enough successful and influential people to believe that, for reasons that you are perfectly willing to explain but that they would have to spend years of study to verify, you have vastly extended the rigourous findings of economics, and that they should therefore be willing to just trust that you have handled the details correctly and are not pulling a fast one, as you necessarily must be to pursue a career in economics.

Honest economics is a trifle of common sense.

Professional economics is the study of how to baffle and manipulate with an impenetrable pose of feigned expertise, and consequently, it is a branch of rhetoric.

>>3101878

Why is Keynes such a fucking douche. Revealing things probably told to him in semi-confidence.

LOL SO EASY ONLY I'M SMART ENOUGH TO DO IT LOL!!!!111ONE.

Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

>>3101968

Diversity of talents: Better
Diversity of knowledge: Better
Diversity of genes: Better

Three big ones off the top of my head. You lose.

>>3102015
That is what true mastery of bullshit looks like.

What prompted Planck to say this is that he honestly looked at the subject and realized that mathematical modeling was infeasible. He found it too hard to get actual findings. Out of politeness, he did not mention his unwilingness to present mere opinions as proven findings.

This is Keynes sneering at someone unwilling to just make shit up and sell it as science, as he did, and still managing to frame it in a self-complimentary way.

>>3102019

Also obligatory: Roger Garisson's powerpoint presentations explaining the Hayekian Capital-Based and the Keynesian Circular-Flow frameworks and the differences between them:

>http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/ppsus.htm

>>3102043

Amen, sir. Amen.

Kind of pathetic, really. Old Maxie was trying not to hurt his feelings and he didn't get it.

>>3102043
butthurt physicist detected

>>3101724
>libertarianism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC1O50az108

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Austrian school are bullshitting any less than the Keynesians.

In short, here are their axioms:
a) economics is for all practical purposes equivalent to the study of figuring out what people deserve (action derives from motivation)
b) a person deserves what he produces (basic incentive to produce)
c) when a group of people freely agree to work together on producing something, they each deserve that share of the product which they agreed to receive (freedom of contract)
So far so good. Sounds pretty reasonable, right?

Oh, and by the way:
d) the economic definition of a person includes, in addition to his mind and body, all of his property (natural property)

And here is where it all falls apart. It's not that it never occurs to them that what one person takes from the natural world into his property, he deprives of any other person the opportunity of doing the same, it's just that they only ever deal with it by lamely hand-waving it off as a non-problem, with the incredibly vague:
e) a person can add something of the natural world, which he did not produce, to his own property by "mixing his labor with it", such as by picking a portable object up off the ground or staking off land (ownership by contamination)

From this last principle, they then presume to derive (in the face of all sense or logic) the default assumption that anything anyone owns under any legal system whatsoever, however it was acquired, should be fully deserved property, and moving forward from this point under no circumstances should any of it be forcefully redistributed.

So in the end, it is nothing more than the polar opposite of socialism, and its perfect twin in terms of sheer batshit craziness.

Tell me libertarians, who can act rational after working 80+ a week for less a dollar an hour? oh thats right no one.

>>3102145

You are mixing the Rothbardian-Philosophy with the Austrian School of Economics. This is just wrong.

Although Rothbardian-Philosophy IS a part of the Austrian School and is influential among AnCaps, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Misesian and Hayekian Means-Ends capital based frameworks and nothing to do with the Austrian Economic Theory.

And although the Misesian account on the Economic Calculation Problem does argue that private property is necessary for a decent society and economy to exists, and although Mises and Hayek sort of accepted Locke-Bastiat's Theory of Property, it still has nothing to do with their economic framework.

Also see >>3102071

The only Axioms that Austrians have are:
>Humans Act.
>Humans act with a purpose.
>Humans act with the purpose of fullfilling a need/desire
>Humans act rationally, in the sense >>3101754 described ( people have different preferences, rank their preferences - as marginal utility ir ordinal rather than cardinal - and pursue their preferences).

And even then, not all Austrians accept Misesian-Praxeology ( Hayekians and Lachmannites never did for example), so not all of them actually care about those Axioms or use Axioms at all.

>So in the end, it is nothing more than the polar opposite of socialism, and its perfect twin in terms of sheer batshit craziness.
This essentially
It's almost funny, Marx and Mises both derived their theories in essential identical ways, philosophy axioms, just to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.
The Keynesian and Neoclassics at least try to use science, and throw their theories away if the blatantly contradict reality.
For Marxists and Austrians, their theory contradicting reality means that reality is somehow wrong.

>>3102180

Only you are ignoring the facts that:

>Mises and Hayek started an institute to empirically study the business cycles.
>Hayek's models and framework, as displayed at >>3102071, are in fact not different from Keynesian and Neoclassical frameworks. The main differences between Hayek and Keynes are their different views on how savings work and Hayek's emphasis on time-preference and how the Capital structure is heterogenous.
>Austrians criticize the Neoclassicals on the basis that their models: Over-simplify things ( such as the way they represent Capital a single "K" and ignore that it is heterogenous), makes too many approximations and faulty assumptions and sometimes pulls aggregates out of it's ass, all of it valid criticism.
>Only crazy Rothbardians believe they are irrefutably correct due to their "Axioms".Mises supported the study of empirical reality to validate theories, he just argued that you can't get the theory itself through only empirical means ( as human action is infinitely more complex, varied and unpredictable than say, an atom's action) - thus supporting Methodological Individualism, something that ALL schools of economics do at a point - and argued that Econometric mathematical modelling of the economy was faulty for already-explained reasons.

The master of economics will be the one to justify conquering space and the research of various things since he will be the one ppl listen to when we talkingg funding of projects.

The scientist of course will be all for research and will try to get whatever funding he needs, the economist will justify whether or not its a good investment

>>3102022
Diversity of beliefs: war
Diversity of race: segregation at best, war at worst

I don't think North Ireland was more stable by having both protestants and catholics, that Iraq is more stable by having suni's and shiia, and I don't think america is more stable by having blacks and whites.

"It was the economists who furnished the scientific pretext by which the practical man could solve the contradiction between egoism and socialism... This is what the economists are supposed to have said. No such doctrine is really to be found in the writings of the greatest authorities. It is what the popularisers and vulgarisers said."
-John Maynard Keynes

>>3102175
>You're pretty much right, but we don't like to put it that way because it makes us sound like lunatics.

>I have SEVERAL hairs to split with that description.

Nobody is accepted in the Austrian economics community who does not identify productivity of one's property with one's own productivity, who opposes absolute private ownership of things like land and natural resources, or who favors any redistribution of private property.

Just as Keynesianism is the art of sucking up to governments who want to dominate the economy with big taxes and big projects, Austrian economics is the art of sucking up to rich people and people who figure they'll be rich soon.

>>3102229
I can admit that the two schools may currently be used in that fashion, but I would harshly disagree those are their original purposes.

Acting rationally means doing what is in your best interest

People clearly don't do this, therefore people are irrational.

>>3102234
Redefining words to mean things that make your points easy to prove IS in the best interest of academic charlatans.

Therefore it is rational for austrian-school economists to redefine "rationality" to include irrationality.

you mean you have no idea what you're doing?

>>3102247

The economic definition of "rationality" is different from the common definition of "rationality". Fuck, Austrians and Neoclassicals/Keynesians use the SAME definition, based on Marginal Utility Theory.

>>3102229

>Still thinks Rothbardian Philosophy = Austrian Economic Theory and Framework, when one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
>Still criticizing Rotbardian framework with out even mentioning any of the actual Austrian Economic Theory.
>Doesn't know anything at all about the Hayekian and the Lachmannite wings of the Austrian School.
>Straw mans Austrians, with out having ever read the Austrian critique of Corporatism, and not seeing the point made by >>3102231

>keynes
>master-economist

>>3101714
le no
Economics considers that the majoirty of people will act rationally. If interest rates go up and it costs more to borrow every month, it's doubtful a significant amount of people will take out more loans.
/basiceconomicsclass

>>3102328
they also think the majority of people have easy access to information

>>3102336
>>3102336
If we only had a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) to serve billions of users worldwid to share, process and store data and information, we could make much more reasonable decisions.

>>3102336
Investors in RBS did not have good information on the activities of Fred Goodwin, such as giving promotions to his lover. Lucky for him that he was in cahoots with the courts keeping his personal activities under wraps.

>>3102352
If only we ignored the semantical fact that transparency only works when those looking for the information understand that information in the way that those who hold the information will obfuscate that information.

In other words, if you don't know what to look for, it could stare you in the face forever, and some economic will think because it's there, that someone has access to it.

>>3102366
Ever thought about something as simple as price comparing sites?

>>3102224

Wrong.

The one's I mentioned are always better. Yours only carry with them the possibility of what you said.

>>3102279
>The economic definition of "rationality" is different from the common definition of "rationality". Fuck, Austrians and Neoclassicals/Keynesians use the SAME definition, based on Marginal Utility Theory.
That's not true at all. Only Austrians redefine the word "rationality" specifically so that any choice a person makes for himself is rational by definition.

"A rational choice MUST be a good choice, right? I mean, OBVIOUSLY we wouldn't call it a rational choice if the person who made it was being stupid..."
"Please continue to hold this prejudice in your mind after we redefine 'rational' to include the stupid and insane. It makes it so much easier to convince you of things that are stupid and insane."

...which is not to imply that other schools of economics are less full of shit, or that they don't redefine "rationality" to mean some other thing (commonly, the unlimited and unrestrained desire for some arbitrarily designated good).

If you follow the chain of replies here, you'll come to the initial post of this thread, which explains that Austrians are AS full of shit as Keynesians and other economists, not MORE full of shit.

>>3102403

You are interjecting what you feel is rational should be rational to others. What you think about rationality of another has no say at all whether it is rational to them.

>>3102373
Ever thought of something as simple as information?

>>3102403
What makes keynesians, or at least keynsian thought, so full of shit?

>>3102422
Societies have to believe in it for it to work.

>>3102434
why so

>>3102434

Haha.

No amount of belief will make Keynesian economics work. What sort of Peter Pan shit are you arguing for?

>>3102441
Why not?

>>3102373
Ever thought of something as simple as Ebay auctions where the seller adds arbitrary shipping costs to obfuscate a total cost?

>>3102444

An ideology that relies heavily upon the devaluing of labor through flooding the market with money is hilarious and irrational.

>>3102438
Well, for one, they have to claim themselves to be rational.

Studying economics in 2011 is equivalent to studying religion in the 1st century

>>3102447
How does it require devaluing labour? I still don't know which specific aspect of the school of thought you're attacking

>>3102449
Again, what are you talking about

LOL

econ nubs arguing about schools of thought in economics

FYI: all economics are based on assumptions. For the most part, these assumptions are
(a) far from reality
(b) completely disregarded after their formation
(c) never reconciled with any other fields of study

I think understanding how humans work with respect to money is a worthwhile venture, but you won't be doing much of that as an economist. You'll be forced to intellectually fellate economists of the school of thought that your particular program subscribes to.

tl;dr- econ is great, too bad economists aren't doing it

>>3102456

Flooding unbacked money into the market devalues labor.

>>3102450
He.

Religion is like the combined forces of the big bang.

Eventually, as matter cooled, the forces of government, Economics, politics and science evolved.

>Unified Religious Experience

>>3102441
>>3102447

Liberty makes EK look like a genius.

Not one idea presented or developed in the entire thread.

Thinks he knows econ

I always lol hard when I'm done raging

>>3102408
The hilarious thing here is that you are applying the Austrian definition of "rationality" to argue for the validity of the Austrian definition of "rationality".

Nice circle.

I will demonstrate the absurdity of this line of thought.

Let's say that I offer to sell someone a lottery ticket from last year. I point out that it is from last year, and explain that the draw was held last year. He stupidly thinks, "When you buy a lottery ticket, there is some chance that you will get rich. I would like to be rich.", ignores the obvious fact that it can not win, and buys it despite only desiring it for the possibility that it will win and having all necessary information to conclude that it can not win.

According to the Austrian definition of rationality, this is a rational choice. The blatant and overwhelming stupidity of the choice, the complete breakdown of logic that lead to the choice, is not relevant to its Austrian economic rationality.

And now you come along and start actually asking me to accept this as a reasonable definition of "rationality".

Words fail.

>>3102466
Does execution of Keynesian policies require the flooding of unbacked money? What if the Government simply spent additionally from its reserves?

>>3102441
Like most ideologies, it's based on a kernel of truth. There are times where government intervention is needed. Like all ideologies, they try to apply it everywhere when it is only legitimately applied occasionally.

The problem with people and thinking is that reality is a lot more complex than people feel comfortable facing.

>>3102481
And theories have evolved to accept that expansionary policies have their limits. Keynes' own recommendations were targeted at a depressed global economy.

As the person who >>3102422 was replying to, I just want to point out that I did not post >>3102434 and am, in fact, not willing to make supporting arguments for my assertion that Keynesians are full of shit at this time.

I don't expect anyone who disagrees to take my word for it or anything, I just don't want to get into it right now.

>>3102473

> imply others are wrong
> never explain why
> pretend to be relevant

Hello, silly.

>>3102475

lolwut

In what writings are you gathering this from?

>>3102476

Replace state with bank/non-forcing lending business and it would be what would happen daily in a free market. They would set the interest rates at actual supply and demand rates. Remember that government set interest rates are low.

>>3102495
Well, okay. I do want to hear about these criticisms of Keynesian thought and evaluate their validity for myself though, whether by you or anyone else

>>3102481

There is nothing the government does that the unregulated market cannot do. Period. You just need to realize that if the people really want it, the market will supply it.

>>3102497
I'm not getting your point. Could you elaborate?

Specifically, in what what do you think that the Keynesian recommendations during a recession would be erroneous?

>>3102503
...market failure?

I don't think any economist has ever rejected the idea of market failure. Unless you want to go into something like Coase's theorem, which would still involve a rather intrusive state

>>3102497
>>3102497

perfect dodge of the statement: I said you don't present ideas

But since you finally brought one up, I'll bite

The market would adjust to some market rate. However, the idea that the market would find the rate that was optimal for stability and growth is nonsense. It would imply that the market equilibrium is always the most optimal for growth.

That extraordinary claim should not be assumed- it would require extraordinary evidence (as is true with any other claim)

>>3102503

Street lights.

Q.E.FUCKING.D.

>>3102506

The flooding of money into the market always happens too late. This causes the floor to be lower and longer. The continued want to keep flooding the market with money makes the ups smaller and shorter.

The world economy is complex and often demonstrates chaotic behavior. To calculate the economic decisions of billions of people, while taking into account the vast array of random and semi-random events, makes it near impossible to form a clear and defined picture of the future.

Maybe when Hari Seldon develops Psychohistory the Economics field might improve. But until then it will remain a tool of variable accuracy.

>>3102503
Indeed. It all goes back to the parable of Gyges and his magic ring.

Being free from the judgements of other men, he is unbound by morality or ethics and thus achieves all his desires with ease.

Thus proving that an invisible hand motivated by selfish desire can do anything.

And what is the market if not that?

>>3102503

this is wrong in any case where there is not perfect information

IE: I'd pay 10,000 for a piece of toast made out of marshmallows. How does a marshmallow factory know to produce me a marshmallow toast?

in the models, it's assumed that they would know

in reality, they spend lots of money trying to get this information. They sometimes get good info, sometimes bad.

>>3102520
I get how policy lags economic conditions, but I'm failing to see how this directly translates into longer lows and shorter highs

So how many economic majors are millionaires?

>>3102517
100% correct

also, even the most ardent free market economists know that government intervention is necessary for the most basic things. Read some Friedman: even he thinks that for certain cases (like property rights, enforcement of contracts) government intervention is necessary.

>>3102537
A lot?

I don't get your point, millions aren't even that much these days.

>>3102525
I don't think you understand how economists get jobs

>>3102548
Through academia.

>>3102503
Right, private markets would be happier with richer and more predictable consumers, which they will clone if they have to if it secures their market powers.

>>3102512

You seem to think market failure means that a gubbmint would not fail there. That is clearly not close to factual.

>>3102514

Your belief that the market is perfect is, well, irrational. But to pretend the interest rate set in actual markets (not 300 million people) would not be a lot closer to the equilibrium that is perfection, is pathetic.

>>3102517

Private street lights exist now. But the relevant material in this would be:

1. The gubbmint does not allow competition. (Look at the post office failure--can explain if you need)
2. The gubbmint owns property a few feet from the street. That just so happens to be where the street lights go.
3. The market would not demand street lights everywhere,

>>3102527
This is as good as reasoning in economics ever gets.

>>3102541
>even the most ardent free market economists know that government intervention is necessary for the most basic things
You clearly underestimate the ardency of the free market economics fringe.

>>3102554
Thats the same way you become a grand wizard in the KKK

>problem academia?

>>3102565
indeed, it's not like they can even demonstrate any of their empirical evidence is of the 1st order.

>>3102558
Read your original statement. My replies never said that governments necessarily do a better job than the private sector. On the other hand, you statements do mean that governments *necessarily* do a worse job than the private sector, something you have not qualified.

>>3102530

If your demand was great enough, it would be produced. Your hang up on information does nothing to say forced gubbmint is/can/will do better or even equal.

>>3102536

The lag is what creates them. Economy drops, it is recognized too late, they flood money into the market. Instead of the correction taking over, more people will attempt to borrow all this new money that hit the market. The money they think they needed is less than they needed as the value has dropped, and the risk has decreased. This new supply they create is not demanded, so more people are now added to the problem.

>>3102541

Friedman is a minarchist.

>>3102541
that seems like a conflation of different types of "intervention"
I think "government intervention" when dealing with economics would commonly refer to monetary policy rather than legal enforcement. Certainly that would be where the crux of the argument lie when concerning Keynes.

>>3102558
>>3102558
>>3102558

Every single free-market idea is dependent on the idea that the market is perfectly efficient.

The idea that I presented was that equilibrium of a market doesn't imply that it has reached any special equilibrium.

The special equilibrium being the one that most encourages growth over the short and long run.

Please at least learn the underpinnings of your own arguments before dogmatically holding to them.


As for streetlights: you didn't refute anything.

1. The government allows for competition (fedex, others)

2. Of course the market wouldn't demand streetlights everywhere. People with money would get well-lit streets, while poor people wouldn't. It doesn't make any sense (as far as public policy) to have whole sections of a city without streetlights just because they couldn't afford it individually.

>>3102548
I don't think you understand how astrologers get jobs

>>3102589

We know now that gubbmint is inefficient. In fact, that is practically the defintion of gubbmint, This is when they have a monopoly and can set prices at will. Competition is the last thing the gubbmint wants or could handle, and this is because they are always inefficient.

>>3102611
>Competition is the last thing the gubbmint wants or could handle
...peaceful governments, anyway. Belligerent gubbmints compete as fuck.

>>3102600
Theory of the firm silly.

If the company could make my strange confection (for say, $100 bucks) and sell it to me for 10,000, then they'd make 9,900 profit, or a 9900% profit margin.

It's not that demand isn't great enough- it's that the company doesn't have any way of knowing what, in specific, i'd pay money for. If they had this information at the time of production, there would never been any need for sales or discounts.

Also, you still seem to be missing the implications of assuming that free-market equilibria are, by default, the most desirable.

I will spell it out for you again: This assumes that there is perfect information in markets. That is, every demander knows the exact financial cost and utility for every decision. Every supplier knows the exact cost and exact price that output will sell at. These assumptions are far from true.

>>3102609
They produce a product that some guillible people use to frame their world view, and only in extreme cases do they rationalize why they use that product if bad things happen.

>is that right?

My thorough perusal of this topic has net the singular conclusion that poster Liberty is silly and bigoted and certainly not worth your time to read or reply to his posts.

>>3102611
Governments are only inefficient to the extent that they remove useful information from the market.

If you assume perfect information, then, of course, governments look inefficient. A government can be inefficient, but so can a market. The reason why we assume that a government can help is because they've hired economists to give them policy advice to correct any market failures. If the economists give them the same piss poor drivel that comes from the staunch laissez-faire economists, then governments will always mess things up.

>>3102631
You could sample his posts on every topic with less effort and still reach the same conclusion.

His silliness and bigotry is invariant to the topic at hand or the sampling rate, pursuant to a reply given more than a sentence.

>>3102604
Very true

In fact, we could even split it into three categories by the method that the government uses:

1. monetary policy: interest rates, fedbank operations

2. fiscal policy: where the government decides to spend money, hiring people, etc

3. law inforcement: legitimized use of force to enforce laws.

I don't think we should leave any out of the discussion, and we can focus on any particular one.

However, the underlying asumption of laissez-faire free markets (as are presented by liberty and others) assumes that the government should do none of the three.

>>3102611
Government arises when one group crushes all local competition and moves on to strive on a regional or global against entities of similar success.

Man, you don't compete your housemaid at washing the dishes. That shit don't even.

Sometimes you just gots to let your dog off the leash to wins you a coney, but that ain't abominate no leashes inherent to the real.

legitimized use of force to enforce laws.
dogma on /sci/ lololol

>>3102653
also, things like minimum wages, tariffs/taxes, legality of transactions (drugs, prostitution, etc) are really part of all three methods. It's easy to forget this when dealing in the abstract.

>>3102605

This is incorrect. They are as close to efficient as you can get. This is based upon the fact that unnatural forces applied to a market decrease efficiency.

I don't care that you want poor people to have lights, that is your emotional want. You are admitting that those that cannot demand should still get supply. Emotion. emotion. Emotion.

They do not allow competition though, silly. http://law.justia.com/cfr/title39/39-1.0.1.5.39.html Here are the regulations on private entities that want to deliver mail. Give it a nice look see.

>>3102624

Tell them, silly.

>>3102640

> gubbmint is efficient at anything

NOPE.png

Everything they do can be underbid by the unregulated market. The good thing about that is they can be underbid and pull a profit. Gubbmint overbids and loses money.

>>3102631

> bigot

How?

>>3102652

> bigot

How?

>>3102653

Not should,m they simply cannot do these things as efficient as the unregulated market,

>>3102664
Well true- a government can ask everyone nicely to play along.


But get out of line, they'll send some guys to you with guns, body armor, and cars. They'll take you to a place they'll keep you locked in for as long as they've decided you deserve.

This is the real underlying power for law enforcement.

>>3102661

Government specifically creates more unnatural monopolies with the higher barriers of entry.

>>3102667

All of which increase barriers of entry, which eliminates competition, and creates unnatural monopolies. You simply support them out of emotional want, Peter Pan.

Hey, Von Neumann here, econ is cool guys, don't be hating

>>3102675
Are you just against polytheism? That seems to be the basis of your argument against governments.

>>3102675

>unnatural forces applied to a market decrease efficiency.
how?

You've assumed markets are perfect and then derived the conclusion that markets are perfect.
That =/= logic.

There are other reasons that it is important for poor people to have streetlights (or other services). A better example of this is healthcare though: poor people don't get access to healthcare for contagious disease because they cannot afford the vaccine. The disease is now more prevalent, which will decrease the amount of healthy labor hours that the market has at it's disposal. Also, these poor people will work less as they are more sick.

Are you implying that this situation is equally optimal as the government taxing the rich and passing out a vaccine?

I guess that's rhetorical- it is the implication of free market economics in general.

>>3102708

Regulations absolutely increase costs. Absolutely.

Markets are all that exist. You cannot remove them.

> implying you have a positive right to a service that has costs

NOPE.tiff

There is not some magic game here, the labor hours available are the labor hours available. Any change will be addressed.

Taxing anyone is never optimal. Charity on the other hand.....

I do not support a free market.

>>3102708
>That =/= logic.
A red apple is still an apple.

An [adjective] [noun] is still a [noun].

Circular logic is still logic.

>>3102624

>Also, you still seem to be missing the implications of assuming that free-market equilibria are, by default, the most desirable.

Read: F.A Hayek's "Prices and production".

>I will spell it out for you again: This assumes that there is perfect information in markets. That is, every demander knows the exact financial cost and utility for every decision. Every supplier knows the exact cost and exact price that output will sell at. These assumptions are far from true.

Not really, it simply assumes that market agents have more information than government agents. The point is not that markets are always 100% optimally-efficient, but that they are more efficient than government.

>>3102640

>The reason why we assume that a government can help is because they've hired economists to give them policy advice to correct any market failures. If the economists give them the same piss poor drivel that comes from the staunch laissez-faire economists, then governments will always mess things up.

Read: "Economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth" by Mises OR Hayek's accounts on the use of knowledge in society.

Government is unable to set real market prices due to the economic calculation problem, and suffers heavy incentives problems due to it's monopoly power. For this reason, it can't fix "market failures" well.

>>3102727
>Uses circular logic to prove circular logic is failed logic because it used circular logic.

u mad?

>>3102737
A red apple is still an apple.

An [adjective] [noun] is still a [noun].

Failed logic is still logic.

U mad?

>>3102653

Not quite.

Monetary policy: Laissez-Faire minded people argue that when government prints money, artificially lowers interest rates lower than the market rate ( Read: Bohm-Bawerks theory of interest) OR artificially expands credit with no savings to back it up, it distorts the economy and causes the boom-bust cycle.
Laissez-Faire people on this subject are divided in 3 schools of thought: Monetarists who accept fiat money and perhaps a small increasing money supply but nothing more, Free-Bankers who believe Private-Currency-Making and market forces would bring the money supply to equilibrium, and the Gold-Standard ones, who believe the money supply should be fixed.

Fiscal policy: Laissez-Faire people argue that high Govt. spending eats the supply of savings and cause crowding out, so they support the lowest possible Govt. spending. See: Frederick Bastiat.

Law: Laissez-Faire people support STRONG defense of property rights and rule of law,and regulation against force and fraud. But even those are divided among Minarchists ( who believe in small, limited State) and Anarcho-Capitalists ( who believe in law-enforcement through private judges).

>>3102742
>Uses circular logic to prove circular logic is failed logic because it used circular logic.

u madder?

>>3102727
fine. it's poor logic.

>>3102723
Government makes a law that you cannot charge more than $4 a gallon for gas. Costs are not affected- Price ceiling below market equilibrium

Of course markets are the default way for people to exchange. These markets are not innately efficient.

In what way to you plan on addressing the sickly labor market? My argument had nothing to do with rights- it was purely based on the most efficient market outcome. There is no argument that having the workforce healthy is optimal. If rich people's charity has not yet gotten to the point where they're passing out the vaccines, then it is left to the government to get the market to the more efficient point.

Your arguments lack any serious reasoning or forethought. What are you supposing a market with no government intervention is called? You say you do not support free markets, then what is it that you're arguing?

>>3102770

You are wanting more workers to mean more efficiency. This is simply not the case. If that were the case, you could simply give everyone a gubbmint job by force and it would be perfection attained.

I am arguing against your emotional want for statism.

>>3102043
>>3102688
>>3102089

Max Plank wasn't willing to venture in economics, but Jon Von Neuman was.

>>3102752
>>3102732

every point in both of these posts are 100% correct.

However, I do not agree with the idea that the assumption that market forces will lead to the most optimal equilibrium.

Also, I do not think the government should set in most cases. There are situations where a market equilibrium is not the best for long term growth (as in the poor workers' health). I think that the information provided by market interactions is invaluable. It is not, however, the only source of useful information, nor is it the best information to go on. The idea of assuming that the government (or anyone the government may hire) could come up with no better information that is found by freely-set market prices would imply that economists are not needed for anything, and that market failures are a most optimal outcome when they happen in open markets. I respectfully disagree with this notion.

>>3102770 4 a gallon

I would turn all my pumps into full service and charge a 4 dollar service fee. Paying my pump monkeys 8 an hour. They would pay for themselves after just 2 filups. Since i have 20 people per pump per hour, i would net 72 dollars a pump per hour, which would ofset lost revenufrom the artificial price ceiling.

Furthermore by petitioning the goverment to lower gas taxes, for hardship reasons, i could keep raising the price to 4 dollars even if cost is much lower

Liberty is making a kind of confusing case for Laissez-Faire here, and most people ITT don't seem to understand the arguments pro-market people make. It's impossible to explain the whole framework pro-market people have in a single thread, but i can give the following links:

>Economic calculation problem
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

>Parable of the broken window
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Pro-Market people argue that the price mechanism sends information to market agents and makes supply and demand coincide, and argue that governnment cannot make a price-mechanism the same way the market does, what they call the "Economic Calculation Problem". Although Market-Failures and lack of information do exist, the government is unable to truly fix them, due to the ECP.

They also argue, based on Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window, that all government spending ( and action in general) have unseen negative consequences that have to be examined. For example, you see the 500 jobs that government construction of building X created, but you don't see the 700 jobs that the taxes paid to make the building destroyed.

And there's also a lot of other different theories. A good way to start understanding the framework is with Henry Hazzlit's book "Economics in one lesson".

>>3102825

Your idea of optimal is based upon fucktarded emotion. You want everyone to be healthy at the costs of others (inefficiency), you want everyone to have more street lights without demand (inefficiency), you want the economy to grow for growing sake (inefficiency). You are just throwing in your emotional wants and pretending that is what is demanded.

>>3102798
Governments passing out a vaccine is not statism. It is a very weakly socialist idea.

The idea that more workers is not efficiency implies that market efficiency is not synonymous with long term growth. Hindering long term growth in favor of allowing a market to reach some specific equilibrium is a poor policy decision.

I would suggest that one of the roles of governments and economists is to figure out how to maintain long term growth in an economy.

>>3102852

Socialism is statism. The ownership they strive for is "public."

Growth is not good because it is good, growth based upon actual demand is "good," and cannot be forced, or achieved through human planning.

>>3102827
yeah, and if there wasn't laws against it, you definitely could do that. You wouldn't need to wait for a hardship or anything- you could just do it right now.

>>3102847
You're an Idiot
You're worse than EK
I hope you die in a fire

I've already given tons of plenty good reasons for why you'd not want a workforce full of sick people. The definition of efficient is meaningless in the face of long-term growth.

>>3102841
Hope liberty reads up for next discussion.

Also, I agree with the ECP being hard for governments to deal with. I disagree that they have no way of correcting market failures.

All im saying is that:
1. free markets can be inefficient
2. there is a possibility that markets won't innately find the most efficient outcome (unless you only define efficient by the outcomes of theoretically free markets)
3. a benevolent social planner may offer assistance in correcting these inefficiencies.

I'm not supporting a command economy. I'm simply saying that it is possible to do better than market failure by government intervention.

>>3102825

>The idea of assuming that the government (or anyone the government may hire) could come up with no better information that is found by freely-set market prices would imply that economists are not needed for anything,

It does not say they are not needed. It simply says they shouldn't work as central-planners.
When central-planners try to manipulate the economy, they disrupt the price mechanism, making both the central planners and millions of people work blindfolded. And the central planners don't have the amount of information that the economy has, even if the market-information isn't the best to follow, most times the central-planner would get worse info.

>and that market failures are a most optimal outcome when they happen in open markets. I respectfully disagree with this notion.

It does not say this. It simply says that government action will disrupt the recovery from the unoptimal outcome rather than help.

>>3102825

>Also, I do not think the government should set in most cases. There are situations where a market equilibrium is not the best for long term growth (as in the poor workers' health).

I will tell you a short story about american healthcare. Before the 50's, american workers created things called "Fraternal Societies" - big, voluntary accounts that workers donated small amounts from their paychek every year, and when one of them got sick, they would use the money to help him. In those days, "economists" ( read: lobbyists) used to say that healthcare was in crisis, because it was too cheap!

With time, government took control of healthcare ( giving the AMA a monopoly on licensing, creating Medicare and medicaid, passing corporate-welfare laws...), abolishing the fraternal societies by substituting them with Govt. Welfare. Now we have another healthcare crisis today, only it is too expensive this time.

Moral of the story in: Even when we have a market-problem, private individuals can solve it through voluntary means. If there is a demand for something, firms or collectives will answer to such demand. Government answer is usually counter-productive, because not only it is forceful rather than voluntary, but because it suffers calculational and incentives problems.

>>3102896

No you didn't, you simply said well huur derp it is better.

I explain more or less depending on the audience.

>>3102861
Paul Romer (and the majority of endogenous growth economists) seems to think otherwise

lrn2econ son

>>3102901
In that case, there was no market problem to solve. Government intervention wasn't necessary because there was no market failure.

Government sure can screw things up too- I'm not intending to imply otherwise.

>>3102904
basic solow growth model: MPK and MPL at a time invariant level is a 'golden rule' optimal long term equilbrium. Lowering MPL (due to illness) lowers that equilbrium.

Like i said, lrn2econ

>>3102925

> implying theft of labor is ever helpful to labor

Oh you!

>>3101639
ITT: People realize economists are useless per their own economic theories.

>>3102898
Yes, but that implies that market cycles are already minimized by leaving markets as free as possible. Any additional government intervention would increase their respective variance.

this is refuted anecdotally by the stock market. It is agruably the most free market in the world. I don't know of any other market that experiences more variance.

In much the same way that people don't notie the negative effects of taxes, they don't recognize the stabilizing effects of a government

>>3102925

>In that case, there was no market problem to solve. Government intervention wasn't necessary because there was no market failure.

Ok, point taken, there was no market failure that needed intervention. But it does show how the intervention that came created the failure we live today.

Though, i can argue that there was initially a market failure ( workers not having the best living conditions and wages at the time and not being able to individually finance healthcare. Specially since fraternal societies first appeared before-during the Great Depression) and that Fraternal Societies had solved it.

But the main point is: Voluntary means of solving market-problems can be created, and will likely work better than Government's top-down approach.

>>3102947

> stocks
> free market

Easily the most hilarious thing I have read today after you saying the post office has competition.

>>3102928
>implying you have English comprehension skills

>>3102959

> implying you know what english is

>economics is easy they said

>>3102947

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory

With a pro-market framework in mind, the stock market is not AT ALL free anywhere. Government-set interest rates and credit expansions are everywhere.

Government can stabilize things, sure. But we argue that private entities can do the exact same job, and better.

>>3102953
economics they said

>But we argue that private entities can do the exact same job, and better

Yep we've seen that private entities really have the good of the people in mind

>mfw financial crisis, predatory pricing, monopoly domination, goldman sachs shorting stocks they recommend to clients, etc etc

gtfo private industry is good for somethings, balancing a budget and ensuring reasonable rates isn't one of them

>>3102982

One of the problems with that is, that private sector's idea of 'stabilising' is to starve people until they are willing to work at chinese wages

Another question is, why should government not behave like a firm of its own and make use of all those idle production factors to do something useful?

>>3102953
>>3102953

I agree that private market solutions can emerge. However, there are situations where the government could prevent downturns and speed up recoveries.

Your case is a great example of a government doing the opposite. It is why so many people have the knee-jerk reaction to say that government=bad

>>3102982
Yeah, but the government doesn't regulate the stock market directly. If we have to consider indirect effects, then there is no free market anywhere in the world.

With no such example, how can you imagine that the theoretical outcomes of a free market model actually resemble the conclusions derived from those models?

>>3102993
lolled hard

>>3102998
I don't think that government is immune from the same flaws. IE: goldman had major responsibility in current economic downturn; government hires lots from goldman.

Also, the idea of the welfare of the people in society is not really a question of efficiency or growth. Modern growth economics simply stop at looking for ways to grow an economy because the distribution of the resources in society is hard to model (and get the answer you want).

It's not that government is less evil than firms, but that the government wouldn't crash a market for profit reasons. I don't put that past powerful financial firms.

>>3102998

>Yep we've seen that private entities really have the good of the people in mind

True, a private entrepeneur doesn't necessarily care about the well being of everyone. But an entrepeneur is not allowed to use force or fraud to do what he wants ( unless the legal system is shitty).
And he is forced to serve consumers in order to get profits. He has competition to beat and consumers to serve, and if he used fraud, force or damages anyone's life/property in the process of competition, he gets punished.

>financial crisis

During the housing boom, government routinely loweres interest rates, expanded credit, subsidized the housing market + promised the big corporations a bail out in case things went bad. To blame the whole crisis on private firms is nonsense.

>predatory pricing, monopoly domination,

Monopolies and predatory pricing are historically government-created things. Monopolies and concessions were historically things granted by the State, none of them ever formed in Free-Market entry situations.
Well, only one Quasi-Monopoly ever formed, it was Standard Oil. But even it is full of myths: Standard Oil started out small and in a very new field, and did grow extremely big. But Standard Oil never increased prices - au countraire, it made oil prices plummet continuously - or acted abusively, and long before the government dismantled it it was already losing markety share and being outbeaten by competitors.

Dumping and other forms of "predatory pricing" only work in Government-protected sectors. In free market, it is a horrible business strategy and always has negative consequences to the aspiring monopolist.

>John Maynard Keynes
>Keynesian economics
>mfw

>>3103015

>I agree that private market solutions can emerge. However, there are situations where the government could prevent downturns and speed up recoveries.

Then we get into a whole new debate, Laissez-Faire vs. Keynesians. Laissez-Faire argue - using the Austrian Business Cycle Theory - that the crisis was caused by government in the first place, and that the crisis is the result of a distorted Capital structure. Keynesians argue that the crisis was caused by a fatal natural instability in markets, and that it is the result of a fall in spending and aggregate demand.

Keynesians believe that savings are bad to the economy during a recession, whilst Austrians believe savings are always good. Keynesians argue that we should save less and spend more, Austrians argue we should spend less, save + invest more, according to the price mechanism.

With the Austrian perspective in mind, it is nearly impossible to imagine government having an overall positive effect, because it's work will necessarily eat savings.

>Goddamnit, i'm starting to think that the field in /sci/ is smaller than in other boards.

>>3103015

>Yeah, but the government doesn't regulate the stock market directly. If we have to consider indirect effects, then there is no free market anywhere in the world.
>With no such example, how can you imagine that the theoretical outcomes of a free market model actually resemble the conclusions derived from those models?

Correct, there is no full free market anywhere, and we can't say with 100% certainty it would be great.
But there were several places and times in history where we approached free markets in certain areas, or privatized X and Y, and results were generally positive ( damn, anarcho-capitalists even have examples of private-law societies, though i haven't read on that. Mainly because i think Anarcho-Capitalists are crazy). On the other side, we can name thousands of examples of government intervention gone wrong just in the last 20 years, nevermind through out history. So although we can't say our models are fully correct, we have evidence to generally support our idea.

>>3103090

what good is it if banks are filled to the brim with currency if
1) businessmen are afraid to invest
2) banks are afraid to loan and
3) people are afraid to or cannot afford to spend?

>>3103049
>During the housing boom, government routinely loweres interest rates, expanded credit, subsidized the housing market + promised the big corporations a bail out in case things went bad. To blame the whole crisis on private firms is nonsense.

>isn't aware of the parasitic relationship between the top financial firms/banks that influence and lobby government policy

>isn't aware that oligopolies run the government and push for low interest rates and DE-REGULATION OF DERIVATIVES

>>3103097
Pretty damn sympathetic to market anarchism, actually.
Would classify myself as a minarchist
But if someone asked, I'd call myself a libertarian
Or maybe a voluntaryist
A member of the Austrian school, in any case
Though not necessarily a disciple of Rothbard
And certainly not of Hayek
But probably of Mises

>>3103115

People do get fearful during recessions, but this does not last forever.

If banks were full to the brim with resources, interest rates would fall and would signal to the economy that we have a lot of resources. Bankers and investors would pick up on these signals and invest, perhaps they would start out slowly, but soon they ( and the consumers) would notice things are good and get the economy back on track. A scenario where everyone is scared of the economy to death when there are a lot of saved resources is unrealistic.

The main differences between Keynes's and Hayek's frameworks are:

>Hayek and Keynes had completely different views on the nature of savings intself.
>Hayek assumed heterogenous capital goods, with different stages in production, each stage with different conditions, wagesm and changing according to market conditions, whilst Keynes circular-flow model dealt with a homogenous economy.
>Hayek put an emphasis on the price mechanism, time-preference and the structure of capital, whilst Keynes only dealth with the circular flow of spending and income.

Change those things, and the Keynesian paradox of thrift is dead and the Keynesian framework turns into Hayek's framework.

>>3103122

Yes i am aware of the parasitic firms that manipulate government, and i criticize them. Only, i know that they cannot change the monetary policy themselves - as they do not have a monopoly on the use of force - so they need government to do it for them, had government kept out of it altogether, and those corrupt firms would have no power, and would likely lose in the marketplace.

And you have to be mad or ignorant of the economical reality if you think derivatives and the financial sectors are "deregulated".

>>3103122
>>3103122
>Isn't aware that the derivatives industry has functioned largely as a scapegoat and that the deregulation thereof (which is largely mythical) is not the cause of current financial woes

>>3103049
>Monopolies and predatory pricing are historically government-created things.

But that misses the point. Governments can induce monopolies but they can also prevent them. It's a matter of the right regulation vs the wrong regulation.

Standard Oil in the 1900s took control of most oil companies by choice. They maintained 90% market share by acquiring over 100 smaller companies. It CUT off crude oil supplies to its competitors because it had control of a huge network of pipelines. It also was able to obtain rebates from railroad companies not only for its shipments but for its COMPETITORS shipments...This prompted the Supreme Court to rule against Standard Oil and create the rule of reason--which prohibited blatant attempts at acquiring monopoly power in a market..simply having a large market share wasn't enough, you also had to behave like an asshole too.

Of course the government can also help a monopoly out, through subsidies and tariffs...but who lobbies for them? Who pays the politicians off and the lawmakers to argue their case? Who pays millions in advertising to sway public opinion and support their subsidies? The private businesses...

What we need is a transparent government that seeks to protect the consumer and the general economy.
The evil starts at the private level, it then infects the government through lobbying, and it infects the masses through advertising...
Look at De Beers. No government help, they've been running a successful monopoly/oligopoly for years. How? Through brilliant advertising and predatory behavior, punishing it's dealers and undercutting its competitors...they control the supply, they can kill off any would-be competitor quite easily.

>>3103202
>The evil starts at the private level, it then infects the government through lobbying, and it infects the masses through advertising...

Fucken amen.

>>3103125

In reality, you're a pseudo-intellectual spoiled brat with the mind (and most likely the body) of a teenage boy.

What does Austrian economics prescribe in the case of a heavy recession, with rising unemployment?

Other than doing nothing.

>>3103202

Standard Oil peaked at 80% market share, true. But by the 1900's, their market share was rapidly falling, i think it was around 60% when the government dismantled it. Several competitors - most starting out small - appeared in the late 1800's and were growing quickly. And Standard Oil did not abuse consumers ever: Oil prices constantly plummeted during it's days. It did raise prices a few times, but it always backfired.

De Beers have received a lot of government aid in it's history. A LOT. With the aid of the Russian government and African warlords it once tried to get ownership of the world's supply of diamonds. Thankfully it didn't succeed.

My point is: Monopolies don't form in truly free-markets, and Government action to stop monopolies is actually counter-productive. Anti-trust laws loopholes are abused by corporations to undercut their competition all the time: If you charge low prices, you get sued for predatory pricing. If you charge equal prices, you get sued for collusion. If you charge higher prices, you get sued for abusing monopoly power. Anti-trust laws are abused by lobbyists all the time.

And the evil may appear in the private sector, but with out the public sector to serve it, evil is powerless. "Good government" is an illusion, politicians are always politicians.

>>3103236

Cutting government spending, lowering taxes, stoppin manipulating interest rates, and leave the money supply alone, as to allow savings to build up and real investment and re-structuration of the economy to begin.

We don't want to do "nothing", the question is who does what: Do individuals plan for their own life and make their own decisions, or do bureaucrats make their decidions for them?

[ I shamelessly copied this from the second "Keynes vs. Hayek" video]

>>3103230
>implying you know who I am
>implying that calling someone a 'pseudo-intellectual' doesn't smack of condescension
>implying I consider myself an intellectual or implied anything of the sort
>implying your opinion is somehow more respectable than mine

>>3103283

>Implying it isn't, even in spite of that, an entirely accurate description of you
>Implying you're not mad
>Implying you're not a spoiled pseudo-intellectual teenage boy with no life experience
>Implying u mad
>Implying correctly

Engineers build bridges, economists build dreams. But what happens when those dreams turn into nightmares? The rest of us pay

>>3103259

>Monopolies don't form in truly free-markets

1. Monopolies don't form in mixed markets either.
Only quasi monopolies, and only temporarily.

2. Truly free-markets never existed, so you can't really make that claim, except as a thought experiment.

3. I don't see any logical reason that precludes monopolies or quasi-monopolies forming in free-markets. There are natural barriers to entry, economies of scale, superior technology, superior management, etc...that contribute to natural monopolies--and there's no reason to suppose they can't continue for large periods of time...

>>3103272

Do you have any examples where this type of policy has improved a recession?

Because this is what the IMF recommends to poor countries, and inevitably their recessions become worse and worse

>>3103304
oh fuck you, ripped that line straight off of Inside Job

>>3103339
Busted, but it's still true :)

>Engineers build bridges, economists build dreams.

ya but is the bridge going to be worth the cost? will it's materials be cost-effective?
what sort of side-effects will it have on transportation and local businesses? What about the environment? Safety? Who is funding it and will it have a toll, will it be a fair toll? Will we have other options for transport or will the bridge have a monopoly on travel? etc

economics, economics everywhere!

>>3103347

take that smiley face right into your nigga-fucked asshole.


Smiley face lowers relevance of your answer by 42%

>>3103300
>Implying that I'm mad
>Implying that repeated use of of the epithet 'pseudo-intellectual' makes you righter than me
>Implying that you know how old I am
>Implying that I'm not laughing at you

>>3103311

See:
>http://mises.org/daily/5266/media.aspx?action=author&ID=467
>http://mises.org/liberal/ch2sec7.asp

>>3103337

The recession of 1920, the banking panic of 1905, most recessions in the 19th century ( which were, by the way, mostly caused by banks with state-charters increasing their supply of savings beyond the gold standard + the National Banking Act).

Recessions only started getting really bad in 1929, when we started trying to counter them with high spending and manipulating the money supply.

The IMF is a corrupt institution. And the poorest countries are not at all free-marketeers, or even pro-market in general.

>>3103378

>Still mad
>Still a childish pseudo-intellectual libertarian fag
>So mad

>>3103389

>Daniel Kuehn's recent research demonstrates that Woods gets many of the facts of the 1920-21 recession wrong.[13] The most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920-21 recession. The Harding administration raised taxes in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates. Kuehn also points out that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy. Since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by any aggregate demand deficiency, fiscal stimulus was entirely unwarranted.

Two sides, I guess...

economics is never black and white, seems like there's problems with every sort of policy and interpretation lol...who can we trust?

>>3103396
Eh.

That's an attitude, though, that I've seen among some people. Some people don't like libertarians.

Instead of generalizing and being an ass, I'll ask why you have a problem with libertarianism (assuming you do and your problem isn't just with me, or at least whoever you think I am)?

>>3103480
you are talking to a troll.

but while I'm not him, I still think libertarianism is for faggots who want to have justification for being selfish, arrogant, heartless jerks.

>>3103431

Daniel Kuehn's paper on 1920-1921 is very problematic, doesn't answer the Austrian main points and even misinterprets Keynes.

He talks a lot about minor details, ignores that the price-stabilization policies were very contrary to Keynesianism, doesn't notice that Harding's approach was not counter-cyclical at all - disproving Keynes -, and merely the claim that the crisis did not have an "aggregate demand deficiency" already flies off in the face of Keynes.

>>3103364

It's called engineering economics, which is a subject on the FE exam. Its just time value of money stuff though iirc

>>3103515
Most libertarians have nothing but sympathy for the poor, but are of the opinion that the State harms the poor, what with vomiting the money of the public everywhere. I have seen no libertarians impel others not to give and give generously, as long as such giving remains voluntary.

Being anti-government and anti-taxation and anti-welfare state and anti-mixed economy doesn't make you selfish, arrogant, heartless, or an asshole.

>>3103658
I don't see how anyone can think that libertarians are against the poor. If anything, they are extremely generous to the poor. Rich or poor, anyone can get a card, and they only ever charge for the books if they're late.

I've never seen a board with so many tripfags who proudly display their ignorance on matters that have objective answers. Liberty is almost as bad as tinycat.

>>3103015

They regulate directly. Heard of the SEC? Are you aware of all sort of speculating that is illegal in the stock market? It seems your knowledge on the topic is directly related to what democrats claim is happening. in other words, you have less than zero knowledge.

>>3103694

> non-tripfag claiming everyone is wrong but cannot explain why

Hello.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/196872/nova-mind-over-money