/liberty/ - Liberty

Silvio Gesell

A literal Proudhonian Georgist who influenced Keynes.

>>70670

I forgot about this fucking guy. Yeah, negative interest on money, because no one's gonna flee into real goods if we have that. I even understood that back then, and I was a pleb in economics. I knew some people who had a boner for him and most of them were insufferable.

Mises

>>70673

>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you fucking Keynesian? I'll let you know that I have over 300 published papers in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.

>>70674

My sides have been analytically refuted. This is gold. We should base the dollar on this.

>>70663

Can't pick between Smith or Malthus.

Both degenerated economic theory two centuries back. Both were also awful people outside their field of study.

Smith's writing was intentionally vague, inconsistent between volumes and unsystematic. How dense do you have to be to use Capital in your market theory without being able to define it? He even tried to weasel out of any future criticism by claiming that his theory applies only to his particular time, rendering it generally useless. This is still done today. It's not just Krugman that dares to say he was right then, but isn't now. Of course, only when he thinks he's pointing a flaw in himself, not due to outside criticism.

>>70680

I've heard that France was where the good economists be at, well before Smith. Rothbard seemed to have liked the physiocrats in particular.

>>70673

rude

>>70663

Marx wasn't even an economist, economists to him were the apologists of capitalism. It wasn't until the 1920's that Marxists started to even consider economics as relevant to socialism.

>>70693

Turgot before Smith and Say after him. Richard Cantillon had French blood in him, but lived in Ireland. Rothbard doesn't care too much about the physiocrats as they didn't advance economic theory as much as they defended and fought for free trade in an age of mercantilism.

>>70712

This actually.

It's kind of wrong to call Marx an economist (at least from a historical point of view), his whole thesis was by all practicality a rejection of economics. He did reference economics by way of smith, but he was first and foremost a communist, never an actual economist or anything of the sort.

>>70693

like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

? XD

>>70751

I said economists, not butthurt faggots.

>too easy, I'll pass this one

Sure buddy.

>>70769

rude