/liberty/ - Liberty

>>102898

I think it's based. Austrian economics is utter bullshit.

He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

>>102900

You wanna maybe fuck off then?

>>102904

A better reply might hav ebeen to ask him to expound on why.

>>102900

there's a reason austrian economics have fallen out of favor with reputable economists. von Mises has got be the biggest retard in all of political economy LOL

>>102905

Austrian Business Cycle Theory misunderstands endogenous money. Like many other economic schools of thought, Austrian economics is predicated on a loanable funds model with a worldview designed to demonize just about everything the central bank does. One of the core tenets of ABCT is that interest rate intervention by the Central Bank leads to a misallocation of capital and that Central Banks control the money supply via reserve creation. These are both misleading ideas. The primary purpose of the central bank is not a conspiratorial attempt to enrich bankers, but to help oversee and regulate the smooth functioning of the payments system.

The act of targeting interest rates and implementing monetary policy are very much secondary to this primary purpose and the powers of such policy, as presently constructed, are vastly overstated by most economists. Yes, the central bank controls a component of the interest rate that helps determine the spread at which banks can lend, but the central bank does not determine the rate at which banks borrow to customers. It merely influences the spread. Overemphasizing the Fed’s “control” over interest rates misunderstands how banks actually create money and influence economic output.

The primary flaw in the Austrian view of the central bank has been most obvious since Quantitative Easing started in 2008. Austrian economists came out at the time saying that the increase in reserves in the banking system was the equivalent of “money printing” and that this would “devalue the dollar”, crash T-bonds and cause hyperinflation. It was standard operating procedure to see charts of the monetary base like this one followed by dire predictions of high inflation or hyperinflation. Of course, none of this actually panned out. The high inflation never came, the hyperinflation definitely never came, the T-bond collapse was a terrible call and the USD has remained extremely stable.

Further, it’s important to understand that all of this talk about “interest rate manipulation” is flawed. A Central Bank supplies reserves which puts DOWNWARD pressure on overnight rates. The Central Bank must always manipulate rates UP, not down. So it is illogical to argue that low interest rates are manipulation that leads to misallocation of capital. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that the Fed controls one interest rate out of thousands….This rate, as we’ve learned in recent years, is no omnipotent policy tool.

So why was Austrian economics wrong on this point? Because their model is predicated on the same faulty loanable funds and money multiplier based model that most other economists use. So they assumed that more reserves would mean more “multiplication” of money and thus hyperinflation. Of course, banks are never reserve constrained and do not make loans when they have more reserves. Further, QE is a simple asset swap that changes the composition of private sector assets. Referring to this as “money printing” is highly misleading (see here for more details). Austrians got this wrong because, in an attempt to attack government, they have devised a government centric view of money creation that misunderstand the way money is created primarily by private competitive banks endogenously.

>>102907

Austrians misunderstand inflation as well. Austrian economists actually change the definition of inflation to serve their own ideological needs. In Austrian Economics inflation is not the standard economics concept of a rise in the price level. Inflation in Austrian economics is just a rise in the amount of money. This leads to all sorts of emotional commentary, the most common of which, is the idea that the USD has declined 95% since the creation of the Fed in 1913 (which is true). But this misunderstands several concepts and misleads us in understanding how the monetary system works.

First of all, the private sector creates lots of “money like” instruments that are not technically included in the money supply but comprise the vast majority of private sector net worth. I use a “scale of moneyness” to help better understand this concept so that we don’t place an undue specialness on the idea of “money” when trying to understand inflation. Instead, I try to explain that spending is a function of income relative to desired saving. And that saving is comprised not only of “money”, but money-like instruments like stocks, bonds, options, etc. To completely understand how the economy is impacted by inflation we shouldn’t merely focus on narrow definitions of “money”, but should understand the aggregate economic balance sheet. For instance, if you sell a stock at no gain and obtain cash you’re not necessarily more likely to spend than you were before because your net worth is the same. Your income relative to desired saving is precisely the same as it was before. This is basically what QE is. It is a swap of one type of asset for another and doesn’t actually alter the net worth of the private sector. Changing the moneyness of private assets does not necessarily mean there will be higher inflation!

But there is a more egregious and nefarious error in this “decline” of the dollar myth. It completely misunderstands how living standards can rise even while the money supply rises. In our credit based monetary system the money supply rises primarily when banks make loans which create deposits. In a highly productive economic environment these loans are distributed by private competitive banks and provide the borrower with the capability to invest in a manner that actually enhances the living standards of society. So, you borrow $100,000 from the bank, you invent and distribute the washing machine and suddenly we’re all better off because we no longer have to go to the river to wash clothes. The technological advancement enhances our lives by giving us more time to consume and produce OTHER goods and services. In other words, the money supply has technically increased, but we’re not worse off because of it. We’re better off because of it! What’s happened since 1913 in the USA is just one gigantic version of the washing machine example where our living standards have exploded through the roof in tandem with a rising level of credit and an innovation boom that human beings have never come close to experiencing in the past.

Austrians, in their fervor to demonize the fiat money system, make several errors here. First, they assume the government controls the money supply (which they don’t). It’s actually controlled primarily by private banks in a market system that Austrians should love. Second, they move the goal posts on the definition of inflation to imply that inflation is always and everywhere a bad thing (which, it can be, but generally isn’t).

That really just scratches the surface on some of the flaws in Austrian Economics. I think Austrians provide some good insights on the way the economy and money works, but these are glaring flaws in the school of thought that render it highly inadequate in helping us understand the world of money in a balanced and objective way.

>>102905

so, in short,

(A) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

(b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.

(c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.

(d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.

Austrianism is just inadequate in cohering with our fundamental assumptions in modern neoclassical models and fails to justify its own claims because they rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of neoclassical theory in general.

>>102909

Nice gish gallop but if their predictions are accurate their methodology is accurate and there really isn't any point in defending the opposition.

>>102898

Funny, I swear Tucker shilled for Warren in another clip, but I can't remember it now.

>>102905

I don't really care for his explanations why, but now I think it's kinda funny that you made him go and copy-paste all that shit.

Jeff Deist's take on it is pretty good. Ultimately, Carlson is embracing his role as a non-neocon conservative populist, and that he means counter-signaling sound economics.

https://mises.org/power-market/tucker-carlsons-broadside-against-austrian-economics

>>102907

>The primary purpose of the central bank is not a conspiratorial attempt to enrich bankers, but to help oversee and regulate the smooth functioning of the payments system.

Irrelevant. Even if you assume central bankers are as angelic as you purport, the consequences of their actions are identical. All this changes is that the Fed must be thought of as stupid rather than malicious.

>The high inflation never came, the hyperinflation definitely never came, the T-bond collapse was a terrible call and the USD has remained extremely stable.

Wrong. No one ever claimed "hyperinflation". But the dollar was devalued and purchasing power decreased exactly as predicted. The only reason it wasn't words is that the US possesses the united power to export its inflation overseas by virtue of being the lender of last resort.

>The Central Bank must always manipulate rates UP

>constantly increasing money supply raises rates

Yeah, you're retarded.

>Because their model is predicated on the same faulty loanable funds and money multiplier based model that most other economists use

HOLY fucking shit, you really are retarded. Austrians reject the Keynesian nonetheless multiplier harder than anyone else.

>inflation is not the standard economics concept of a rise in the price level. Inflation in Austrian economics is just a rise in the amount of money

Those two things are biconditionally linked, you pilpuling Jew. Even outside of your Austrian boogeyman the Quantity Theory of Money purports this.

>But there is a more egregious and nefarious error in this “decline” of the dollar myth. It completely misunderstands how living standards can rise even while the money supply rises

No it doesn't, niggerfaggot. Living standards are rising in spite of the monetary base increasing, not because of it.

>In our credit based monetary system the money supply rises primarily when banks make loans which create deposits. In a highly productive economic environment these loans are distributed by private competitive banks and provide the borrower with the capability to invest

INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PAPER PIECES DOES NOT CREATE MORE WEALTH OR MORE INVESTMENT MONETARISTS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEE…

Money has nothing to do with wealth. Low time preference and savings create wealth and investment opportunities, not creative accounting.

>So, you borrow $100,000 from the bank, you invent and distribute the washing machine and suddenly we’re all better off because we no longer have to go to the river to wash clothes

This is literally the broken window fallacy, you absolute nigger.

>It’s actually controlled primarily by private banks in a market system that Austrians should love

If it was privatized, it wouldn't need an act of Congress to be created.

>Austrianism is just inadequate in cohering with our fundamental assumptions in modern neoclassical models

That's because your models are shit.

Do me a favor, fruitcake. Next time you want to show everyone what a galaxy-sized brain you have by making a three-post wall of text, could you try being the slightest bit original? It doesn't take very long much effort to regurgitate the Cliffnotes of Mankiw's textbook into a textbox. If this is the best you can do, go back to masturbating curiously to the pragmaticcapitalist blog, or whatever it is you do for fun.

>>102906

>reputable economists

But Mises and Hayek support Austrian economics. (You) are making no sense.

>>102919

Found an even better take from a pod caster I follow, one Jared Howe. Polite sage for shilling:

>I rarely break from Tucker Carlson but I absolutely must object to certain aspects of his opening monologue from Wednesday night.

>It was actually a pretty good rant, for the most part. He strongly stressed the popularity of economic nationalism and the importance of protecting the American worker before going on to justifiably condemn the American political class for selling off America's job market and manufacturing base. He also lambasted Republicans for being less vocal about the issue than know nothing Democrats like Elizabeth Warren.

>These were all valid contentions. I think he was right to emphasize the importance of putting our own country first, and to pin the blame for globalism on cronyists. On the other hand, I think he was wrong to blame Austrian Economics for the lack of backbone among Republicans. It may be true that many establishment Republicans bend the knee to the Koch brothers, and it may be true that the Koch brothers founded the CATO Institute, but CATO is "Austrian" in the same way that the PATRIOT Act was patriotic.

>Their policy positions are always implicitly (and sometimes even explicitly) Keynesian, and have been for a long time. That's why they make it their number one priority to push for mass migration as a way to boost GDP. There's nothing implicitly "Austrian" about forcing people to accept latecomers against their will en masse and telling them it's for their own good.

>By contrast, the original German version of "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises was called "Nationalökonomie". Mises defined nationalism as an extension of every person's right of self-determination, which he viewed as impossible absent freedom of association. As a self-described "classical nationalist", national unity and the right of national self-determination guided everything Mises wrote. He saw national unity as being a necessary prerequisite for casting off the despotic rule of monarchs, most of whom were seen as foreign occupiers.

>Of course, we now know from the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe that it was a mistake for Mises to ascribe the responsibility for despotism to the institution of monarchy itself, and that this despotism actually arises in spite of monarchy rather than because of it, but the point still remains that the Austrian tradition is firmly rooted in economic nationalism.

>When Republicans and Democrats put the global economy ahead of the American economy, they're not doing it out of a sense of fidelity to Austrian Economics. They're not doing it because they care about satisfying the subjective preferences of consumers. They're doing it to ensure that the Federal Reserve retains its status as international lender of last resort, which allows America to be a net exporter of dollars, which allows central bankers to keep printing money from nothing and circulating it into existence as a loan to be paid back by the future income taxes of unborn children, which allows politicians to keep enriching themselves and their cronyist handlers at your expense in the present, all while bribing other net consumers of tax revenue for votes.

>Nothing about Austrian Economics says we should be doing any of this. Nothing about Austrian Economics says we should use our military to permanently occupy the entire planet and attack countries who use currencies other than dollars to facilitate foreign exchange. These policy prescription are unique to the Keynesians, Marxists, and Modern Monetary Theorists of the world. Everything these globalists do is to protect their central banking cartel and their ability to print money from nothing. That's why they're more focused on the global economy than the American economy. There isn't an inch of daylight between the Communist Manifesto and Keynes's General Theory when it comes to central banking and credit expansion, and the same is true of the fiscal and foreign policies of Democrats and Neocons.

>By contrast, thinkers from the Austrian tradition don't even think that central banks should exist! And so I say it again: Tucker Carlson is wrong to blame Austrian economics for the lack of backbone among RINOs. The exact opposite is true. Their lack of backbone is a product of their rejection of Austrian economics. Those whose incomes depend on winning democratic contests will ALWAYS reject economics when the electorate demands economic unreality.

>Democracy itself is thus inherently hostile to economics, and to nationalism, because it increases the degree of conflict that occurs over the use of scarce resources while undermining our ability to produce basic necessities like a functioning economy and territorial defense.

>The problem isn't Austrian Economics.

>The problem is that democracy super-charges the destructive effects of central banking

>>102920

u mad libtard?

>>102920

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

What about this lengthy criticism?

>>102927

LOL fucking cringe bro. Mankiw is still the most reputable economist in our day bitch boy

>>102933

There are a lot of replies to that, but there's one thing in there and the replies that I've always wondered about: the whole monotonic transformation thing.

Caplan's response makes sense if you assume that when an Austrian is talking about ordinal rankings that they mean that all preferences are in a totally ordered system ( if you have A,B,C; then A is < or > B, and B is < or > C, and A is < or > C). However, I'm not sure if this is really what most Austrians mean (even though they throw around the word 'ordinal' a lot). It seems a lot more appropriate to assume something different: that only one object in the set of preferences is ordered (the one exhibited by the action), making the preference ranking partially ordered, and very weakly so (if you have A,B,C; then A is < B,C, but you can't say anything about B w.r.t C). Again, I don't know if this means that Austrians are using the word 'ordinal' correctly or not, but it would explain why Caplan and everyone who has replied to him just keep talking over each other–combined with the fact that I'm not completely sure if this is a distinction that even most Austrians are aware of.

To put it in vocabulary that I think Caplan could understand: Austrians are assuming a completely different mathematical topology of preference.

>>102934

>y-y-you're unreputable!

Nice non-argument. This is an anonymous Bulgarian cave-painting website, not your undergrad professor's cocktail party. Try again.

>>102933

>value theory

If the Chicago School follows an ordinal theory of value, they have been incredibly successful in obfuscating this. No mention of such is made in any literature of which I know, and most neoclassical adherents speak as if utility is a cardinal value. They go as far as to assign a unit measurement to utility, the util. Such a unit, even if they acknowledge it as only an abstraction or simplification, is only simplifying if you assume utility to be cardinal. Else, it only muddies the waters further. It seems to me that Caplan is guilty of that which he accused of Rothbard: acknowledging that only ordinal value is sensible, he tries post-hoc to attribute it to neoclassical economics.

I can't personally speak as to what Rothbard said about the income and substitution effects. But I can say that Caplan's implication that they cannot be derived from ordered values is simply false. It does not take a strenuous effort of the imagination to consider that a man who works X hours may value one additional hour of leisure more than the income from one additional hour of work. This is a basic marginal analysis, to suggest Austrian the key can't create it is disingenuous. I'll read the rest at a later time.

>>102938

Finally, one should compare the two models with economics in mind. Economics is meant to describe human action. When a man is deciding between two items in a store, he will ask himself which of the two he desires most urgently. He will not derive a utility function, draw a budget line, and find the intersection of the two. Not even those economists who swear by the utility function presume to use it outside of their papers. The Austrian School, then, accurately describes behavior, while the Chicago School does not. One might perhaps argue that the Chicago School is more suitable for building complex novels. This may be true, but is irrelevant when these models do not reflect reality.

>>102942

>indifference

Caplan's objection here seems to be entirely one of semantics. He himself acknowledges that Rothbardians can think of hypothetical actions, but objects to their ignoring preferences not to shown in action. Caplan neglects to tell us the difference between a hypothetical action and a preference. In any case, Caplan's dismissal of action-based analysis as behaviorism betrays a poor understanding of the Austrian method, or at least a poor representation of it. Economics is the science of human action, which is why it concerns itself with action. Examining things other than action is no longer economics, and does not contribute to explaining human action.

So-called "potential" actions are inferior to taken actions, as they are not real. Thus, any attempt to use potential actions to explain indifference fall flat. In his dress shirt example, clearly the something made him prefer one shirt to another. Even if we take it as given that he prefers the colors equally, one shirt may have been closer to him than the other, or recommended by a salesman, or any other tie-breaking factor. Whatever it was, the very fact that he chose demonstrates that it's impossible for him to be truly indifferent. Even if the reason he prefers one to another is totally trivial, it still exists. All this waffling about definitions and behaviorism does little to prove indifference and does nothing to disprove the action based method.

>>102934

>Mankiw

literally a no-name

>>102946

"No-name" ah yes, a former presidential economic adviser, educator, and prolific writer. Most metrics put him in the top 20 in terms of his influence. Try again.

>>102946

he's also the 11th most cited economist in papers and 9th most productive research economist. call him a no-name if you want but he holds more influence than you're letting on

Not abput the Chicago school. He explicitly targets Rothbard and Mises because they are NOT Chiagoans like Hayek, beacuse they drop some a lot of microeconomic axioms

>>102945

Semantical gobbledygook lmfao

>>102938

>If the Chicago School follows an ordinal theory of value, they have been incredibly successful in obfuscating this. No mention of such is made in any literature of which I know, and most neoclassical adherents speak as if utility is a cardinal value.

They really do though, and Caplan explains this. They start with an ordinal theory of value, and then use some theorems from mathematics dealing with monotonic transformations to allow their results to be extended from results dealing with cardinal theories of value. That's why I brought up >>102935 .

>>102957

only #38 most cited works of an economist as of last month:

https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.nbcites.html

>9th most productive research economist.

Source?

Still, number of papers is no measure of influence:

https://superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-living-economists/

>>102956

And Paul Krugman holds a Nobel Prize. So does King Nigger. Appeals to authority mean nothing, faggamuffin.

>>102961

No, Caplan gives his own post hoc interpretation of Chicago School utility to decide after the fact that it's about ordinal value. Ordinal values do not require units, and the fact that neoclassicals frequently use an imaginary unit to refer to utility makes one question whether they think in ordinal terms. Once again, if they actually use ordinal value they've done a very good job of hiding this fact from any outside observer. And their theories don't seem dependent on value being ordinal or cardinal, either. All of this combined suggests they don't think of the nature of value ''at all.' It's just some exogenous number they think comes out of nowhere, much like they do with interest rates.

Back to the article:

>continuity

A bunch of useless semantic waffling about calculus. This isn't actually an argument in terms of economics, Caplan's just butthurt he can't use multivariate models to do his thinking for him.

>welfare economics

Caplan starts with his insistence that the action axiom is behaviorist and empirical. Why this is wrong was discussed above. Social utility is probably what our Stirnerite friends would call a "spook." It doesn't exist and can safely be ignored. Caplan's strawmanning of the action axiom has likewise been discussed previously, and his further butchering of it here can be safely ignored. His attempt to suggest transactions aren't mutually beneficial because of envy of all things is laughable. Hurt fee-fees are not property rights, and I'm honestly disappointed in Caplan for trying to imply otherwise.

>subjectivism

>Innumerable Austrian essays and books use the word "subjectivism" in the title. This leaves one with the impression that other economists fail to embrace subjectivism - an impression that is simply false.

Caplan spent the last two paragraphs talking about calculus and social utility. Anyone who believes he embraces subjective value need only re-read that passage to be proven otherwise.

>applied topics

If Caplan seriously can't see the epistemological significance of arriving at similar conclusions from very different starting points, I kindly ask him to kill himself before he hurts somebody with his crude attempts at philosophy.

>socialist calculation

This whole section is based on semantics play on the definitions of qualitative and quantitative. He makes no argument refuting Mises' calculation problem and this can be safely ignored.

>Monopoly theory

Caplan claims incredulously that Rothbard dismisses the perfect competition view without proper explanation. Rothbard needs no explanation because the answer is self-evident: perfect competition does not exist, and horizontal demand curves do not exist. But then in the very next paragraph Caplan goes on to declare this very same thing–that perfect competition is not any sort of ideal, and imperfect competition is the best that can reasonably be achieved. Seeing as this explanation could easily be applied to Man, Economy, and State, I'm uncertain what criticism Caplan is making here. It sounds like he's, once again, waffling about semantics with no real point in mind.

>>102973

>public goods

Caplan provides us with a very thorough definition of externalities here, but I don't see any kind of argument being made, let alone one directed at Rothbard's many, many, writings on public goods.

>ABCT

None of Caplan's conclusions here refute Austrian economics proper. If he has correctly paraphrased Rothbard here, he might have caught Rothbard in a minor contradiction. But this contradiction has no bearing on Mises, Rothbard, et al's conclusions on the long run effects of inflation on employment. And this is of course assuming that Rothbard has indeed contradicted himself, and that Caplan is not in error or being misleading. Since Caplan hasn't been very impressive so far, I'm not invested enough in this article to check the citations and see if he's accurate or not.

Later in this section, Caplan seems to be under the impression that Austrians assume a naive irrationality among entrepreneurs. They will simply compensate for the low interest rates by realizing it is lower than it should be, he argues. For someone who examined the Calculation Problem just a few paragraphs above, this is shamefully obtuse. The money supply being controlled by the state, calculating what the interest rate "should" be is impossible, and it is thus impossible to compensate for it. Therefore, even shrewd entrepreneurs are unable to fully compensate for the distorted interest rates, and will also experience losses. And of course, naive consumers will be all to happy to take advantage of the low rates and borrow extensively, even if certain entrepreneurs know not to do this. Once strategic behavior is introduced, even more reasons for this "irrationality" become apparent. While some entrepreneurs are shrewd, others assuredly aren't. These naive investors, many of whom are first-time entrants into the market, will happily take this easy money without a care in the world as to the implications. And employees care not if their paycheck was made on sound money or not, and will go to whoever offers them the best terms. This creates a situation similar to a prisoner's dilemma. Even if shrewd employers know that they will incur losses, they are forced to act "naive" anyways in order to compete for the scarce resources of loanable funds and available labor. Further, these "shrewd" entrepreneurs may act recklessly because they know they will be bailed out by the federal government come hell or high water, which is what happened in 2008. All of these are explanations proffered by the Austrian school, and some are common enough that they're posted on the Mises wiki. That Caplan missed them suggests either immense stupidity or immense duplicity, I will leave it to the audience to decide which is the case.

>theory and practice

Most of this section is just Caplan touting hypocrisy as a virtue which he calls pragmatism.

>Is theory enough?

Caplan is once again butthurt that he can't use models to do his thinking for him, and decries Austrians for understanding the limits of their field.

>math and econometrics

Caplan is even more butthurt about not using models.

>conclusion

So Caplan's a free banking fan, apparently. Yet another opportunity to bully him. The real disappointing thing about this article isn't its failures, but the fact that this is truly the most earnest attempt to refute the Austrian school that I've ever seen.

The problem with Mises as guru is that Misesian classical liberalism (or Rothbardian libertarianism) is like Newtonian physics. It is basically correct within its operating envelope.Under unusual conditions it breaks down, and a more general model is needed. The equation has another term, the ordinary value of which is zero. Without this term, the equation is wrong. Normally this is no problem; but if the term is not zero, the error becomes visible.

Just as Newtonian rules only make sense at low speeds, Misesian rules only make sense in a secure order. Mises himself once wished for apraxeology of war, which is fairly good evidence that he didn’t have one. Carlyle was not a place he would have looked. Carlyle was taken—Carlyle, the statist, the royalist fascist and the royalist progressive, was the prophet of those (on both sides of the Atlantic) who had no place for Mises. To say the least!

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey/

>>102973

>No, Caplan gives his own post hoc interpretation of Chicago School utility to decide after the fact that it's about ordinal value. Ordinal values do not require units, and the fact that neoclassicals frequently use an imaginary unit to refer to utility makes one question whether they think in ordinal terms. Once again, if they actually use ordinal value they've done a very good job of hiding this fact from any outside observer. And their theories don't seem dependent on value being ordinal or cardinal, either. All of this combined suggests they don't think of the nature of value ''at all.' It's just some exogenous number they think comes out of nowhere, much like they do with interest rates.

What's a monotonic transformation? I'm asking this because I want to test whether you actually know the Chicago School's arguments or not. You completely skipped the meat of the argument, which is behavior I would expect from the commies on this board, not you.

>>102898

Just an authoritarian right-winger sympathizing with an authoritarian left-winger.

>>102981

What you call the "meat" of the argument is an irrelevant red herring. The shape of indifference curves has no bearing on whether the neoclassicals use ordinal value in any real sense. Considering that the bulk of Austrian criticism of the neoclassical approach has less to do with ordinal value and more to do with their deficient methodology and the absurdity of the utility function, as has already been said. It appears you are once again engaging in that which you accuse others of, by continually redirecting the argument to this point.

And of course, all of this whinging about monotonic transformations ignores some rather glaring facts Because it includes indifference curves, neoclassical theory can never be truly ordinal. Further, even if they start from an ordinal assumption, the calculus and various transformations neoclassicals love so much to do on their precious utility functions can only be done if one assumes ordinal preferences to be ratio-level numbers. They clearly are not, so this attempt is self-evidently nonsensical. The Chicago School, in their mad dash to imitate the hard sciences with their quantified equations, have amputated themselves at the knee.

>>102993

>And of course, all of this whinging about monotonic transformations ignores some rather glaring facts Because it includes indifference curves, neoclassical theory can never be truly ordinal. Further, even if they start from an ordinal assumption, the calculus and various transformations neoclassicals love so much to do on their precious utility functions can only be done if one assumes ordinal preferences to be ratio-level numbers. They clearly are not, so this attempt is self-evidently nonsensical. The Chicago School, in their mad dash to imitate the hard sciences with their quantified equations, have amputated themselves at the knee.

That's fair. I don't have much else to say here.

if you're getting your econ from a faggot news anchor, then I don't know what to tell you.

>>102898

>unironically supports Pocahontas

>thinks the party that cucked Ron Paul twice is libertarian

>thinks the crony bros, who benefited from govt regulations are Libertarian

>thinks supply siders are austrian

This shit honestly makes me regret my 2016 nationalist phase , and supporting Trump, so much.

natcons are just retarded Neo Mercantilists, and right wing socialists.

>>104198

They're better than the neocons, marginally. I'd rather have mercantilist buffoonery than mercantilist buffoonery but also foreign wars and refugees.

>>104199

fair point

>>102898

The only people who are into ancap shit are unemployed zoomers who still live with their parents so they can freely live in their ivory tower of weirdo ideals without having to face all the horrible consequences of neo-liberal economics

>>104223

I don't know any unemployed ancaps.

>>104224

From my experience, ancaps are either the unemployed highschool kids who still live with their parents (I consider working at McDonalds for 20 hours a week because their parents told them to get a summer job basically the same as unemployment) or young college kids who got a job through blatant nepotism doing busy work at their dads lawfirm for example. Its a really ivory tower ideology that can only come about from someone who doesnt have to worry about paying bills or playing the game of life in the exact same way socialist college kids live in a fantasy world of high ideals and not footing in the boring realities of life.

>>102906

>there's a reason austrian economics have fallen out of favor with "reputable" economists

because it doesn't favor the big government that the powers that be want?

>>102908

An increase in the supply of money will by its very nature lead to an increase in prices, barring a similar increase in the supply of goods or some manner of price control.

>>102909

>inadequate in cohering with our fundamental assumptions in modern neoclassical models

But it can't be that the newer models that fail time and time again are wrong.

>>102898

Hayek disdained the rich though.

Just because you find the explanations of economics in austrain-economics believable it doesn't mean that you need to use those explanations in a libertarian way.

>>104232

Yes, it's theoretically possible to use the implications of economics in a totally misanthropic way, e.g. implementing price controls specifically because you want the price to increase and the quantity/quality to decrease. But why on earth would you choose to do that?

>>104228

Thats not even remotely close what I'm saying. Stop falling back into canned meme responses

>>104240

>canned meme responses

<ancaps are unemployed teenagers who live in an ivory tower

>>104240

>canned meme responses

>hurr highschool kids who live with their parents

>hurr ivory tower

>hurr lived experiences

>hurr ur just like socialist kids

Pots should learn not to call kettles niggers. The (you)s your post is getting are exactly as serious as it deserves.

>>104226

That's not my experience. Then again, the reason why our experiences differ is probably because ancaps hide their power level. You probably only know kiddo ancaps because only retarded people talk about politics in the open nowadays.

>>104266

>because ancaps [I know] hide their power level

>>104265

This thread made me realise I'm not very economically literate

Any reccomendations for unbiased econ101&201 textbooks?

>>104272

>Most introductory micro textbooks are pretty faithful to their subject matter, it's just that their subject matter is neoclassical/Chicago School econ

That's good enough for me, Im interested in knowing what they believe in

I'll look through my old universitys econ degrees reading list and start there

>>104272

>>104285

Also I forgot to say thank you

>>104285

>>104286

Sure. Try to stay away from Krugman's textbooks if you can, and keep in mind that this recommendation only applies to micro texts. College macroeconomics may as well be entrail reading for all the explaining it does.

>>104198

Protip: Almost nobody is interested in acutal, good faith discussion anymore. It's all about zero sum persuasion games signified by strawmaning, reductio ad absurdums and snarky putdowns. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Chapotards, various dissident rightists ("trads", NEETsocs, NRxers etc) or mainstream cons and libs, just assume every time the other guy is out "own" you with some epic logic trap.

>>102898

The way this guy says "would you vote for someone like that? my gosh, of course you would" is enragingly condescending.

Do statists really enjoy blatantly being told what to think like this?

>>104561

who is a chapotard?

>>105152

It’s a reddit called “r/ChapoTrapHouse”

Don’t go there, it will be unimaginably painful: imagine all of the leftist virtue-signalling of the internet, filled with Berniefaggotry, Yangniggery, and egalitarianism.

r/ChapoTrapHouse is also pretty shit.

>>105155

>reddit

>don't go there

oh thank god you told me not to go there, I thought it was a great community

so Tucker is just pandering to nazi socialists now isn't he?

Didn't he used to be Libertarian and wear bow ties and shill for Ron Paul and shit? Was it all an act?

>>105262

I think he mentioned he used to have a "libertarian phase" and got over it apparently. The only nice thing I can say about him is his anti-war views. The rest of his views however are fucking stupid.

>>102898

Tucker just doesn't like the open borders aspect. I think he's fairly libertarian-minded actually.

>>105322

He likes free expression and loathes antifa. There's plenty that's good about him.

>Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/02/01/manufacturers-added-6-times-more-jobs-under-trump-than-under-obamas-last-2-years/#73e2ef5a5635

>Under Trump, Manufacturing Job Growth Slows to a Trickle

https://truthout.org/articles/under-trump-manufacturing-job-growth-slows-to-a-trickle/

protectionism is objectively better than neoliberal globalism

>>105401

https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0

>>105371

Tucker really is a grade-A imbecile.

>>105379

I suppose. There's stuff I don't agree with him on but compared to most other tv political hosts he's better than most. That's not saying much though.

>>105423

No one gives a shit about ivory tower psuedo intellectual masturbation from unemployed zoomers in comparison to real world practical realities.

>>105429

>DUDE OPEN BORDERS AND GLOBALISM ARE ACTUALLY GOOD!

>>105434

>Unrestricted trade lets you send factories to the shithole countries instead of bringing shitskins here.

Thats still a bad idea and thats literally what globalism is.

>>105437

>Sending jobs "overseas" doesn't take jobs away from Americans.

It literally does when an automotive factory shuts down in Michigan in order to build a factory in Mexico instead. Those people lose their jobs. And whats the use of cheaper products when you cant afford anything anyway since your job just got shipped to a different country?

>Americans to work safer office jobs instead of more dangerous factory jobs and still afford to have more purchasing power.

This is the sort of myopic ivory tower stuff Im talking about. Something that can only come from someone either not in the workforce or just completely disconnected from reality. The fact is these jobs you see as beneath you offered high school educated Americans a chance at a nice middle class life, with enough money to buy a house, a car, and start a family. Thats how they had their purchasing power.

>>105437

This isn't Factbook, no one's going to take your account away if you don't virtue signal enough.

>>105440

Disprove comparative advantage or git out.

>>105441

explain how having your job shipped overseas for cheap third world labor in anyway benefits the American middle class, especially those without a college education.

>>105456

Comparative advantage explains such things. Prove it doesn't exist or git out.

>>102906

because "reputable economists" are court propagandists who serve the state

>>102898

>>102927

>establishment republicans' policy positions are always implicitly (and sometimes even explicitly) Keynesian, and have been for a long time. That's why they make it their number one priority to push for mass migration as a way to boost GDP. There's nothing implicitly "Austrian" about forcing people to accept latecomers against their will en masse and telling them it's for their own good.

>By contrast, the original German version of "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises was called "Nationalökonomie". Mises defined nationalism as an extension of every person's right of self-determination, which he viewed as impossible absent freedom of association. As a self-described "classical nationalist", national unity and the right of national self-determination guided everything Mises wrote. He saw national unity as being a necessary prerequisite for casting off the despotic rule of … foreign occupiers.

Critics use Austrain and Keynesian economics interchangably when they're not.

Fundamental differences between Austrain and Keynesian @3:20 https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=symk3IZCxM4

I embed a (longer) Ron Paul talk on Austrian economics.

>>105813

dr. paul shifts from libertarianism to economics @25:12