/liberty/ - Liberty

>>75932

>>75957

Now I have cancer

>>75964

Soy increases the risk of cancer. I think you've had a bit too much, soyboy.

>>75964

If this is so poor for your health, why are you here? There are plenty of safe spaces on the internet where you can LARP as a revolutionary without getting triggered.

>>75974

>No privatized police

>Secular

>IP

What a gay, lol. The economics at the end aroused me, though.

I was going to make one of these but I realized partway through that I'd just end up blanking most of the image and writing PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FREEDOM OF DISSOCIATION in large block letters, so it seemed a bit pointless.

>>75926

I got a third of the way through it and got bored.

>>75990

>Secular

What's wrong with that?

>>76005

Secularism is a concession to relativism. I'm all for toleration, but secularism goes beyond that by pretending that religion does not exist at all. That's what it boils down to not to let religious beliefs influence public life. At worst, secularism becomes a surrogate religion, although the risk for that is pretty low when the federal government is the president, six police officers and three guys running the lottery.

Granted, it's less of a problem for a small state tasked solely with protecting individual rights. Even then, I think toleration is sufficient.

>>76005

>>76008

Seculari=!secularism, although with that Objectivist flag you can't rule out the latter. A secular government is merely one that is not explicitly religious, they don't have to start tipping fedoras.

>>76008

What you're describing sounds more like the "antireligious" checkbox right underneath the "secular" one. Individuals can still be religious, or you can even have a strongly spiritual/religious culture without the government having any say in it. Should this be the case in a society, a secular government would not favor this religion or any other in it's policies, nor would it stamp out the religion and it's culture altogether.

>>76029

Well, the logic here is that if he made it "anti-religious" then no one would worship the almighty soybean.

>>76008

All I mean by that is that anyone is free to practice any religion but that does not mean muslims will not be banned or looked down on. ANy group that tries to forfeit the law will be punished accordingly, being secular doesn't change that.

>>76015

If I ran that government, I wouldnt let muslims in, but you're free to practice it inside if you'd like to be interrogated and live in fear everyday.

Honestly, anyone practising religion would be looked down on and people would put up banners denouncing the church (or any other religious structure) in front of it.

>>76014

>Economic calculation is impossible without money prices to calculate with

<Dude, just, like, use algebra!

Another lefty who hasn't actually read Mises, I see.

>>76118

But I have. Believe it or not, I used to be a retarded ancom in my late teens, I would eat that trash literature every day. It's all bullshit.

>>76014

>linear algebra

research diminishing marginal utility

>>76118

>Cockshott

1. High standard deviation from results (basically guess work)

2. The source containing these "labor values" cannot be individually researched and fact-checked. It is like linking an article which only the preamble is available to the public for free.

>>76119

>Believe it or not, I used to be a retarded ancom in my late teens, I would eat that trash literature every day.

An ancom would probably classify those authors as haram Stalinists, so I find that hard to believe.

>>76124

>>Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell

>I read them years ago.

Then you should know that what is proposed in TANS is not identical with how >>76014 filled out that meme quiz. The Austrians said you must have a market to evaluate what gets produced. TANS just has a boring standard market for consumer goods like that. The Austrians said you must have a market for means of production as well, to properly evaluate that stuff, and for that the means of production must be privately owned by different parties. But it is shown in TANS that you can actually use the information from the consumer-goods market to go back to all the parts of the means of production to re-evaluate them in light of that.

>>76126

>research diminishing marginal utility

I got three problems with your "argument":

1. The linear equations are mostly about actual physical production, not human psychology, so we are dealing with fixed co-efficients, meaning the proportions in which the different components of a product enter it stay the same regardless of its quantity. Whether you produce 100 or 10000 motorcycles, you need two wheels per unit made. 2. You can do a hack and approximate a relationship that is a curve by several straight lines, just like you can approximate the shape of boobs with triangles. 3. Marginal utility tells you for a given amount of wealth just to take from the rich to give to the poor, and only divert from that a bit to motivate people to be productive. Have fun contorting yourself trying to justify absentee landlords and passive stockholders as necessary to production.

>>76127

This. I also think they "refuted" two objections to the effect that labor-time and monetary value do not coincide by saying that the two errors would cancel each other out, because they point at different directions.

>>76146

>Then you should know that what is proposed in TANS is not identical with how >>76014 filled out that meme quiz.

I know, and chances are no other author he mentioned would have filled it out like that. Neither would their answers have been identical to each other. Lefties hate consistency. Any explanation for why central planning is possible is as good to them as any other. They don't even have to be mutually compatible.

>The Austrians said you must have a market to evaluate what gets produced. TANS just has a boring standard market for consumer goods like that.

Not quite correct. Mises acknowledged that knowing what consumer goods are to be produced is technically possible even under central planning. That was never in dispute.

Although the method proposed in TANS was far from elegant. Arbitrarily reducing prices of goods to see how this affects demand? That's just badly simulating the market, and in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with the egalitarian moral standards of Cockshott and Cottrell. They didn't even want to differentiate wages based on merit.

>The Austrians said you must have a market for means of production as well, to properly evaluate that stuff, and for that the means of production must be privately owned by different parties. But it is shown in TANS that you can actually use the information from the consumer-goods market to go back to all the parts of the means of production to re-evaluate them in light of that.

I think that was an idea first introduced by Lange. I'm not aware that Cockshott and Cottrell added anything to it, but then again, it's been a while since I've read them. If I got that wrong, please correct me, and please understand that I'm not picking them back up just to refresh my memory of them.

Anyway, here's what Mises says:

>Even if planners observed the money prices which continued to be generated on an unhampered market for

consumer goods, or substituted their own unitary scale of values for those of their subject consumers, there would still be no possibility for the central planners to ever know or guess the “opportunity cost” of any social production process. Where actors, in principle, are not in a position to compare the estimated costs and benefits of their decisions, economizing activities, by definition, are ruled out.

To say that you can go back from consumer goods to capital goods is to plain reject Mises' central point. You're not showing anything he didn't think through, you just say "he was wrong". From an engineering standpoint, you can "construct" a production structure that delivers a certain amount of consumer goods, but not in an economically efficient manner. It would not even be equivalent to building a motor, but to building a motor and not knowing what each component is worth and having no budget. And once you have done that, how do you adjust to a change in conditions, when your production goods have no price tags? You don't know which production good to take out of use and put to a different use instead.

That is on top of all the practical problems of Cottrell and Cockshott, like how you put a labor-value-tag on such things as workplace security. Do you just increase the wages that workers receive and take away the safety railings for a month, then see how they react? I don't think they answered that, and they are the ones that put themselves in a position of creating a blueprint for society.

>>76189

>>The Austrians said you must have a market to evaluate what gets produced. TANS just has a boring standard market for consumer goods like that.

>Not quite correct. Mises…

The Austrian answers aren't identical to each other. Austrians hate consistency. Any argument for why the market just werks is as good to them as any other. They don't even have to be mutually compatible. (This is how you argue.)

>Arbitrarily reducing prices of goods to see how this affects demand? That's just badly simulating the market

People change quantity demanded of consumer good when the prices change, and this is sensible, but this is bad somehow when the bad people you don't like do it. This is just waffle without any content.

>Where actors, in principle, are not in a position to compare the estimated costs and benefits of their decisions, economizing activities, by definition, are ruled out.

Exactly, and in the real world mortal people barely have any information about society at large, and information that would be useful to them is artificially hidden because of trade secrets, NDAs and the on. Making information public about what your company is about to do while a competing company doesn't do likewise, gives them an advantage over you. Even if all that data were made transparently available, it would surpass the ability of human minds. So congrats, you just made the argument for socialist planning with centalized data processing.

>how do you adjust to a change in conditions, when your production goods have no price tags?

As you were already told, the components of machinery and other resources that themselves are not bought and sold and are used to produce things that are sold do have cost data associated with them that gets constantly updated and that reflects the sales data of the things that they help producing.

>>76146

>The linear equations are mostly about actual physical production,

Which is incompatible to technological advances that often operate on a logarithmic scale.

>not human psychology

And that is why central planning is inefficient.

>You can do a hack and approximate a relationship that is a curve by several straight lines

True but this “approximate” cannot compare to the supply/demand satisfied through a decentralized system (each geographical region, each community, each individual has its own curve).

>Marginal utility tells you for a given amount of wealth just to take from the rich to give to the poor, and only divert from that a bit to motivate people to be productive.

Not just a bit, but approximately matching their productivity.

>justify absentee landlords and passive stockholders

We are against this.

>>76204

>>The linear equations are mostly about actual physical production,

>Which is incompatible to technological advances

You got the wrong scope here. That part of the proposal is about adjustments of physical quantities with given technology. And innovation by definition lies outside simple mathematical formulas and often won't neatly fit into existing categorizations, so one can criticize Cockshott for not having a machine for surely delivering innovation, but that's a vacuous criticism that just as well applies to capitalism. The formal "proofs" of capitalist efficiency are all some very simple models, innovation is no part of it.

>>not human psychology

>And that is why central planning is inefficient.

If you perceive what physically speaking are fixed co-efficients as not fixed because you project your squishy body's reaction to consuming things unto how machinery works, it is you who is wrong, and it is you who has to adjust to the reality of things sooner or later, with some or much regret.

>>76202

>The Austrian answers aren't identical to each other.

Way to contradict what you said earlier. How come you can talk about "the Austrians" but I can't?

>Austrians hate consistency. Any argument for why the market just werks is as good to them as any other. They don't even have to be mutually compatible. (This is how you argue.)

Yes, this is how I argue, except I argue that way against Marxists. The charges are true when made against Marxists, but not against Austrians.

>Austrians hate consistency.

They don't. Methodologically, most are still Misesians, so that if you've read Mises, you know exactly the methodology that Rothbard, Murphy or Hoppe are using. They all accept the business cycle theory, the calculation-problem, marginal utility and so on, too. Good luck finding genuine differences between them that are not deliberate innovations or deviations from the Misesian system. If you can point out any, then I'm impressed.

And just for the record, there are some Austrians that aren't Misesians. They may have more trust in econometric methods, or follow a more radical subjectivism, like Hayek did. However, everyone of us knows this. We don't try to mingle with foreign methodologies. When an Austrian economist follows Hayek closer than Mises, he knows, and we know.

On the other hand, Marx himself was inconsistent. He came up with several variations of his historical model, omitted historical stages in some, added them in others, conceded that a historical reversion to other stages is possible and that some stages are actually kinda on the same stage and don't have to succeed each other, etc. He also used several definitions of exploitation, and true to him, later Marxists have done the same. It's bad living conditions when you're talking to the plebs; the extraction of surplus labor when talking to the economists; and alienation of the worker whenever you're feeling adventurous. You also variously support social welfare, and hate it with a passion. Yet I have seen little opposition from Marxists from one camp against those from another.

>Any argument for why the market just werks is as good to them as any other. They don't even have to be mutually compatible.

Likewise, no. I have yet to see a Misesian bring up an argument based on observation or experimentation. Hoppe, who did argue historically a few times, made it extra clear that historical facts can be used to demonstrate a priori laws, but cannot serve as the basis for establishing economic laws. We're all very clear about our methodology, and when an argument is based on a flawed methodology, we don't use it. When an argument isn't quite sufficient, we are open about it before we present it. You must have noticed that Austrians are rather reluctant to use the incentive-problem as an argument, for example.

Do you know the "great dehomogenization debate"? It happened after a few decades of Austrian scholars mixing up Mises' calculation- and Hayeks knowledge-problem. So they sat down and thought about which of these problems means what, and the result is that from then on, no one mixed them up again, and some Austrians have stopped using Hayeks argument, finding it too weak. I am not aware of such a fruitful dehomogenization debate among Marxists.

On the other hand, Marxists really jump on the first argument for central planning that comes to their mind. In times past, they liked to point out the USSR, Red China, Red Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on, but somehow, they ex tunc became capitalist after it became too obvious what failures they were. Did Marxists change their position after that? You'd expect them to, given how much trust they had in these systems, but instead, now they bring up the supercomputers. None of them that I know seem especially concerned with figuring out how exactly these supercomputers should work, however. If they were really interested, instead of just trying to find a quick, low-effort way to btfo socialists, you'd expect them to try and figure out just how to do it. Maybe take math classes to understand what Cottrell and Cockshott are talking about. Speaking of them, I think in all their papers, they attack some new objection made to them which they haven't thought about before. They don't point to their prior work to show that they really did talk about the objection before. On that, maybe you can prove me wrong, I don't know. It's not a central point, however. All in all, Marxists don't strike me as consistent at all.

>>76202

>People change quantity demanded of consumer good when the prices change, and this is sensible, but this is bad somehow when the bad people you don't like do it. This is just waffle without any content.

It's bad when it's done by people who demand that everyone earns exactly the same wage, doctors or waste disposal workers (in fact, the latter would probably earn more, if Cockshott and Cottrell had their way). You really see no conflict between this proposal and between radical egalitarianism?

>Exactly, and in the real world mortal people barely have any information about society at large, and information that would be useful to them is artificially hidden because of trade secrets, NDAs and the on. Making information public about what your company is about to do while a competing company doesn't do likewise, gives them an advantage over you. Even if all that data were made transparently available, it would surpass the ability of human minds. So congrats, you just made the argument for socialist planning with centalized data processing.

Oh boy. In a market, what isn't secret are price signals, and it's through prices that actors can compare costs. They don't need to know every single detail in the economy to know if their capital could somehow be used more economically. Theoretically, an entrepreneur could be a complete dumbass with no idea of what oil even is, and still help alleviate a shortage of it, by figuring out that at the current cost of the stuff, it would be profitable to research into more efficient means to extract it. Under socialism, that wouldn't be possible. The state, or syndicate, or whatever you have would have to make a lucky guess that digging into the earths core to find more oil is more or less wasteful than just switching to nuclear power and synthesizing whatever oil is still needed.

>As you were already told, the components of machinery and other resources that themselves are not bought and sold and are used to produce things that are sold do have cost data associated with them that gets constantly updated and that reflects the sales data of the things that they help producing.

And what about opportunity costs? Whether they would better be used elsewhere finds expression in their costs, too, but not in the final selling price of the production goods made with them. A bottle of water in the mdidle of the desert will fetch the exact same price whether the water was shipped in by truck, synthesized from oxygen and hydrogen in the air, or drilled out from an underearth reservoir.

>>76219

>You got the wrong scope here. That part of the proposal is about adjustments of physical quantities with given technology. And innovation by definition lies outside simple mathematical formulas and often won't neatly fit into existing categorizations, so one can criticize Cockshott for not having a machine for surely delivering innovation, but that's a vacuous criticism that just as well applies to capitalism. The formal "proofs" of capitalist efficiency are all some very simple models, innovation is no part of it.

That criticism hits socialism much harder because whether to implement an innovation or not is also an economic question, and per the calculation-problem, you cannot handle those. Capitalism can. So if robots are invented, an entrepreneur can know if using them in mines is wasteful or not, but a planning board can't.

>and it is you who has to adjust to the reality of things sooner or later, with some or much regret.

I swear, whenever I talk with you guys, I get the impression that you're trying to instill a sense of impending doom in me.

>>76232

>>76241

>bla bla bla

Can someone give me a TL;DR soy version of what this Marxist is rambling about?

>>76219

>That part of the proposal is about adjustments of physical quantities with given technology.

Except "given" technology is not static, so by the time you calculate the productive inputs, they are already incapable of meeting current demand.

>innovation is no part of it.

What is profit incentive?

>If you perceive what physically speaking are fixed co-efficients

Productive coefficients are not fixed - I just mentioned this earlier.

>>76241

>>People change quantity demanded of consumer good when the prices change, and this is sensible, but this is bad somehow when the bad people you don't like do it.

>It's bad when it's done by people who demand that everyone earns exactly the same wage, doctors or waste disposal workers

Cuba has lots of shortages, but doctors are not among them. Do you think Cuba would suffer less from shortages, if they paid doctors more?

If we lived in a world where hourly pay for each job were basically the same, do you not think people would still flock towards jobs that are interesting and highly regarded? I spend more time at my job than with my family. This is completely normal in the world we live in. If pay were the same everywhere, I wouldn't become indifferent to what I spend so much time doing just because it making no difference for my income then, on the contrary, the decision would be all about that. The most attractive jobs would have tons of applicants, the people doing best on tests would get them, you think the prospect of spending years of their life at an interesting or boring job wouldn't motivate them? Among skilled jobs, there would be a much higher concentration of people who are passionate about their field. Motivating people with more income really only works up to a point. For dreadful physical work paying people in direct relation to output can work. For creative work, well… I got an example: I work on some math problems in my spare time. If I could commit to these problems as a paid full-time job that would likely make me more efficient at solving them, but once we have reached that point, giving me more money won't make me think faster.

>In a market, what isn't secret are price signals, and it's through prices that actors can compare costs.

Akshully, as somebody who works in a gigantic company, I can tell you we have all sorts of internal processes and the prices we use to interface with the outside world only show a surface of what's really going on. You cannot tell from our prices how much we have of what inside. And it's likewise with other companies. Really big problems manifest themselves on the outside, but before they are big problem, they exist as small problems that grow inside. In a computer-guided economy like what C&C advocate for, the factories and storage facilities would be like made of glass, you could see what's going on inside the guts, not just the skin.

>And what about opportunity costs?

That a machine that can produce A or B, but not both simultaneously, so that the opportunity cost of producing A is that you don't produce B with it, and so on, is already a part of the algorithms Kantorovich came up with in the 1930s. It just wasn't feasible to do such calculation on the big scale and in detail.

Race/ethnicity is White Slavic for obvious reasons, though it would most likely hold a rough 10-15% minority of various other ethnic groups like *DEGENERATES*, Vlachs, Hungarians, Dalmatians, Bulgarians(since this is Yugoslavia with Bulgaria) etc.

Degenerates is Albos by the way.

>>76451

Also Constitutional Congressional Republic(none of this parliamentary bullshit), constitution is absolutely immutable.

Amendments may be made only if they do not contradict constitution and laws set within - this includes by popular vote.

>>76452

>Slavic

>White

only anglo masterrace can be called white

>>76241

>innovation

lies outside simple formalisms, so you don't have some logical proof that capitalism is any good at that. Reminder that in big companies the rule is patent owner != inventor of what is patented and that engineers goofing off invent more things than any business wankers.

>>76454

>Anglo

>White

Good one, man….oh wait, you were serious. Anon…I have some concerning news for you…you're a snownigger.

>>76514

>Engineers goofing off in private company

>Not Capitalism

Were you born deformed or is this a new development?

>>76525

>Feynman is an engineer

>working in a university is socialism

Fuck you. Fuck you and all the socialist retards that claim "science" is on your side. You don't know shit about Feynman, and I would strongly advise you to investigate the properties of angular momentum by playing "chicken" with a wrecking ball.

t. physics major

>>76530

That actually looks pretty comfy.

>>76530

> the fields and goals they choose*

* ᴀs ʟᴏɴɢ ᴀs ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ's ᴘᴀʏɪɴɢ ᴅᴇᴍᴀɴᴅ ꜰᴏʀ ɪᴛ

>>76544

>living as a slave to the demands of the masses is true freedom

Sounds like being a cuckold but okay

>>76546

yea your right communism is synonmus with cuckoldry

>>76552

who are these sluts and where can i find 1?

>>76559

thx vry gud

>>76530

>associating an illustration of medieval society with the USSR while throwing some strawman buzzwords proves your point

a quick search would prove that Moscow in that year looked pretty much like your average metropolis in the eighties: https://www.google.com/search?q=moscow+1982&tbm=isch

>>76544

do you seriously think the market is representative of the average person's needs and not of corporate demand? why do you think artificial demand and planned obsolescence (i.e. selling us shitty things we don't really need for the sake of increasing profit) are seen as viable strategies within a market economy?

>>76600

>>76614

Irrelevant. Come back once you can disprove our a priori methodology or show how we misapplied it. Until then, I don't see why I should indulge every single one of the polls and opinion pieces you bring up.

>>76449

I'll admit that I don't know how you would enforce intellectual property without some sort of institutionalized violence, considering that copyrights and trademarks are defined mainly by government recognition of such.

>>76602

>planned obsolescence (i.e. selling us shitty things we don't really need for the sake of increasing profit)

But these are products that people demand because they are more affordable and they have shorter time preference.

>>76312

>>That part of the proposal is about adjustments of physical quantities with given technology.

>Except "given" technology is not static, so by the time you calculate the productive inputs, they are already incapable of meeting current demand.

The time it takes to do the type of calculation proposed in TANS for the entire economy is so short you can update the prices for consumer items and "prices" of productive machinery several times within a single day.

>>76729

You going to need more than several times a day. Also, what about second hand goods and used commodities?

>>76739

How often do shops update their prices, monthly?

>>76741

Online stores quite often especially those that accept cryptocurrencies.

>>76745

They update their cryptocurrency prices to match the relatively static price of real currencies.

>>76763 is correct. It's not what a product costs expressed as a fraction of the price of another that changes so much, what is changing is the $ value of the crypto currency. A more general point: When a retailer changes prices, this information does not necessarily reach the supplying company on the same day. The information spreads much slower than in the TANS system, where systematic input-output dependencies aren't hidden from people.

>>76449

>ideas are labor

it takes labor to create ideas and you own that labor, but ideas themselves are not property because they are not excludable

example

>hey writefag, I want this book to exists, write it

<pay me first

this is the writefag owning and selling his labor

>hey readfag, that pdf you downloaded belongs to me

<then how did I download it?

this is writefag NOT owning the idea, because it impossible unless you hide it like a secret recipe or something

>>76763

>"'real" currencies

I view it the opposite way, as in that fiat is unstable.

t.edge-pro

>>76741

Also, capital venues (e.g. stock markets) prices vary continuously throughout the day.

>>76797

And given that bread, steel, dragon dildos etc. tend to be rather stable measured in fiat currency compared with the crypto currency, the proper way to see it is that your favorite crypto currency is the only thing that is stable (indeed, 1 unit of it equals 1 unit of it, 100 % stability) and everything else is unstable… Just like that, you can always define the side of the road you drive on as the correct side, it's just all the other people who are doing it the wrong way.

>>76798

But how much of these movements is the stock market just reacting to itself instead of taking in information from the world outside of it?

>>76830

>And given that bread, steel, dragon dildos etc. tend to be rather stable measured in fiat currency

Their prices effectively double every 20 years, so I don't see this as being more stable than my gold-backed crypto.

What do you mean by "information from the world outside of it"? Do you mean the effect of other markets?

>>76014

>public breastfeedinf illegal

You better make all public consumption of food illegal too then dumbfuck considering that's how infants eat and baby formula would be abolished under socialism

>>76451

Who appoints the executive head by merit?

>>75974

How is executive head appointed by popular vote & merit?

>>75957

>no police

>no military

Other nations will enjoy invading you

Countries with militaries/police > countries without

>>77458

I think he wishes to disband the state centralized police in favor of PMCs and militias. Not police altogether.

>>77459

oh cool

I wonder what the education and language requirements are for immigration

seems a bit odd for a voluntary association collective to have those requirements

>>77453

Who cares.

I will survive Millenia

>>77510

>my religion is the IWW offically.

KYS

>>77522

My mothers mother was a ukrainian woman. does this mean i have entry into your republic?

Also as an aside, can i get citizenship to ukraine as a canadian citizen as well?

>>77522

>isolationism

why?

http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/hayek.htm

austrian economics debunked (redpill overdose)

TRIGGER WARNING: FACTS AHEAD!!

tl;dr

>gold standard is unstable and not a viable currency, susceptible to fraud and dependent upon mining

>they are openly anti-scientific, rely on "praxeology", they are philosopher at best

>dumb ideology funded by koch brothers think tanks (CATO) to convince ignorant armchair economists

>every prediction they had is proven wrong

>they business cycle theory is wrong

>they don't use scientific method, no maths, no statistics, nothing, just speculation

>only used as political rhetoric by ron paul to rile up his gadsen-flag hillbilly voterbase

>all of peter schiff's predictions are wrong, he has been preaching doomsday for decades

>mainstream economics agrees with less than half of their policy

>literally no respects austrian economists today, abandoned as early as 1950's

>only good thing to come out of it was Hayek, who wasn't even Austrian since he rejects praxeology. He contributed to price theory, and added to the socialist calculation problem. Also his philosophy is superior and way more nuanced compared to mises/rothbard.

top global econ journals, ZERO positive austrian results, all negative! outdated! wrong! pseudoscience!

https://academic.oup.com/qje/search-results?page=1&q=austrian&fl_SiteID=5504&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1

https://academic.oup.com/restud/search-results?page=1&q=austrian%20economics&fl_SiteID=5508&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1

https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/mac/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&within%5BjelCode%5D=0&journal=6&q=austrian+economics

https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/jep/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&journal=3&q=austrian+economics

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_economics

ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_neoclassical_synthesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_consensus_of_economics

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220480309595230

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.nl/2017/04/economics-is-inexact-science.html

https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/39717/Master-Thesis-Nicolas-Bernerman.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1530995

https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/top-ten-austrian-economic-lies-and-mistakes/

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

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/top-ten-lies-and-mistakes-of-austrian-economics/

https://hallingblog.com/2015/09/08/praxeology-an-intellectual-train-wreck/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/search?q=austrian&restrict_sr=on

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138469

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html

https://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/introductory/marketfailures.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1py0a8/eli5why_is_the_gold_standard_bad_feel_free_to/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/eej.2012.32

you are getting (((nosed))) lolberts

https://www.economist.com/news/business/21711504-his-theory-management-inspired-austrian-school-economic-thought-worked-wonders

want to learn REAL economics? no problem, open source PDF book

https://openstax.org/subjects/

Blogs (neurtal-center right)

http://marginalrevolution.com/

https://uneasymoney.com/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/blogs

http://econlog.econlib.org/

…..

>>77822

>Cronwell did nothing wrong

of course he did nothing wrong for a bourgeois bootlicker like yourself

he saved England from revolution, he was to English revolution what Napoleon was to French revolution

the New Model Army was full of leveller sentiment, just look at the proposed "Agreement of the People" constitution

and of course army got cucked on the next rendezvous with Heads of Proposals supported by officers

also, it was army who demanded the execution of Charles I

Cromwell pacified them with a middle ground approach and his Ireland campaign always keep the soldier busy, and even then he had to crush a couple of mutinies with leveller sympathies

>>77814

Angloland is a mix of Anglo-saxons Danes, Romans and Normons, all foreign ethnicities that mixed into that baboonland. Britannica is a bigger mistake.

>>77814

>You need economic regulation to break up monopolies and cartels

lel, so much for entrepreneurial freedom

how are you any different from anarshits who fear everything big by default?

antitrust law is the most disgusting thing ever that came out of this status quo bourgeois liberal order

you're free to exploit but not until you've become too big so that my petty bourg feefees gets hurt

then I will go cry to my daddy state that you engage in "unfair" competition

it's literally capitalism for the prole and some kind of hideous everyone-gets-the-same-profit-rate socialism for the porkies

it is because of people like you that the Bell System got balkanized

and what we have in the result? Prices spiked

after more than three decades AT&T assembled almost all of the Baby Bells, only now it is not a vertically integrated company

good fucking job

also funny how Mises spergs out against "vertical concentration" as he calls it in his "Socialism"

really, if market can never fail, why would you want to bypass the market as a manager and rely on some bureaucratic means?

fucking brainlets everywhere

>>77814

>Jacobite

>monarchist

Top goy

>>77814

>nationalism

0/10

>>77522

>Slav Neo-Nazis

>Neo-Paganism

>Voluntary tax

Were you born on the Siberian steppe to a chromosomally deficient Mongoloid?

>>78488

>That fucking abortion of a bullpup next to the firearms column

>>78488

>christian arab

what strand of christianity are you member of?

>>78491

non denominational.

>>78488

>>78491

>Christian

>Arab

>Britbongistan

>gets HH dubs on top of all this

Is this some kind of multi-layered memery?

>>78501

sorry, forgot the double ** to spoiler

>>78494

dont you fear having acid thrown at your face by muslim arabs who hate people who left islam? inb4 i have never been a muslim

>>78501

>Australia

>Free

They've got more bans, more censorship and more general government kikery on products than I can even shake a stick at. I always hate these "Freedomness" images.

>>78699

>bans

regarding animals and plants

>censorship

???

>>78904

The last one - tax discrimination - is actually barred by Islamic Sharia… no coercion in matters of faith, no aggression or mistreatment to those who do not war with you, etc.

In other fun facts, while a woman is not required to wear a head covering, the only passage to even mention a hijab… also assumes women run around topless.

Tor-block.

http://uplod.ir/f4k81nrprb8f/ftfy.JPG.htm

>>78905

ok. whats the jizyah then.

>>78917

aint clicin dat shit nigga

>>78905

Go practice you taqiyya somewhere else.

>>78920

Takat.

…at least, I think that's how it's spelled.

>>79185

my grandgrandfather was a polish soldier attacking berlin along with soviets but im ardent antisoviet

sage

>>87877

[-]

>>75926

Glow in the dark.