The debate between Austrian and Keynesian ended 15 years ago. Austrian offered a little bit of reform but was mostly wrong. The only people clinging to Austrian are Right-leaning people without real understandings of economics.
Prove me wrong. Protip you can't
And yet, Austrian is still less harmful than Keynesian
What is the difference between the two that makes the Austrian school shit? Genuinely asking.
Austrian: free market is always good, no exceptions
Chicago: based on experience, most of the time free market is the answer, but there are some handful exceptions
Keynes: government has to control the boom and bust cycle with government spending
Marx: not even worth mentioning
Austrians have been the only ones to accurately predict depressions and recessions. Mises called the Great Depression when everyone else thought it was a great economic boom.
Chicago is pro-central bank.
>Austrians have been the only ones to accurately predict depressions and recessions
To be fair, only because they predict a recession / crash all the time.
The Austrian school is objectively right.
Evidence: Every nation on earth.
This.
Hayek, Keynes, and Friedman can all fuck off.
>bu-but muh govt spending.....
Government can spend all the money they want, and they will still never predict what people want to buy.
What does it matter what people buy? Are you arguing for a free market or a controlled market?
It has been proven that demand-side is more effective than supply-side so why do you cling to the Austrian economics?
austrian economics is just the beginning
It depends on the individual, David Friedman is certainly ant central bank and really Milton was too, but he was more concerned about improving the economic situation as it currently was than the ideal.
Survival of the fittest.
Business who supply shit that people don't want, will die.
We don't need government faggots worrying about whether redundancy is an inefficient use of resources.
>YOU CANT HAVE PEPSI AND COKE THE NATION ONLY NEEDS ONE SODA COMPANY
Ok commie.
for the most part, the austrian criticisms of empiricism remain unanswered.
That being said, yeah, a lot of the austrian school's perscriptions (esp. during recessions and depressions) are pretty retarded.
Economics really isn't a good social "science" for people who care about being right.
disregard just read the wikipedia pages on the respective schools.
>It has been proven that demand-side is more effective than supply-side
to the contrary, most neo-keynesian analyses I've seen come to the conclusion that because of accounting properties, tax cuts are much more effective stimulus than spending increases.
feel free to provide a source if you can refute me
i've just had an idea! consider the following: keynesians and neokeynesians are the flat-earthers of economics.
Oh.
So you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Carry on.
>take my economic advice, and your country too can look like this
Yeah, no thanks javier.
keynesians economic is the most crypto-jewish economy that ever exist
>survival of the fittest
>who cares if no one has health care or proper drinking water
>you should be allowed to sell your children as slaves
>less harmful
Marxism is the Flat Earth of economics
That said Chicago School > Austrian School
selling your childrens reduce the survival of your gene, please do it, it will purge your sorry dynasty from the face of the earth
see it work overtime
meming aside, a parent dont own his child as a property
>Austrian is still less harmful than Keynesian
>literally letting business cycle burn and crash resulting in more poverty and lost human capital than would have been saved through government intervention
I mean some aspects of Keynesian economics are dumb but that post is literally cancer
>selling your childrens reduce the survival of your gene
Better than letting them starve to death on the streets.
>meming aside, a parent dont own his child as a property
Only if you have government intervention, which is anthema to the austrian school.
>free market literally weeding out the shit
>lol nope lets use the government and taxpayers money to fix thing.
>the cycle of shit continues with no lesson learned other than tolerance for assfucking the majority of the population based on delusion of sustainability of cartel scum.
Econfag here. Austrian economics is far from perfect, but the school itself has actually made significant contributions and has exerted a surprising influence on mainstream economics. I'm not an Austrian myself, but they aren't even close to being the flat earth of economics. That distinction goes to those who still believe in the LTV
You don't have the first clue about macroecon, user. Weed yourself out of this thread.
it ask self-intervention to reduce the act, kill the parent that sell their own childrens by yourself for breaking the NAP against their own childrens
you should see ancap as feudalism, all of them are like feudal lord and breaking the NAP exomunicate you and its allowed to take all the lands from you by other feudal lords
in ancap all humans are sovereign feudal lords and enstead of the pope making the natural laws, property right and self-ownership is the natural laws
The market could deliver health care and water far better than a central government. The reason why the US health care system back in its pre-Obamacare days was seen as shit was because of government restricting competition through various regulations, thus driving up the price. The actual service was/is far better than muh "free" healthcare in Europe.
>you should be allowed to sell your children as slaves
Rothbard isn't the only Austrian economist. Also, you can even find Rothbardians who disagree with this stance
also this is not macroeconomics
Who will force people to sign the NAP?
austrian economic is based on absolute darwinism, its the total opposite of flat earth economic
marxist econ is young earth
Keynesian is divine intervention
Private law, like what they had in medieval Iceland. I'm not sure how effective it would be in the modern day, but guys like David Friedman (who doesn't seem to really believe in the NAP anyway) and Bruce Benson have written some interesting stuff on the topic
nothing, the NAP is just to give legitimacy to violance egainst the one breaking it
ancoms dont sign it but if they trespass they get an private helicopter ride
How the fuck is that macroeconomics.
Even so, what the fuck makes the government so divine and effective over others to arbitrarily enact catastrophic decisions that in the short term serve its own individual interest's and bonuses(paidholidayTM)?
>what the fuck makes the government so divine and effective over others to arbitrarily enact catastrophic decisions
Government intervention dampens GDP fall by boosting aggregate demand, effectively less people lose their jobs, less people end up on benefits, less people get stressed or suicidal, less drag on healthcare, less human capital lost and negative potential output as a result.
Need more?
Counterpoint: pic related.
Except you forgot to mention that's all short-term and avoiding the problem in the first place.
Also
>benefits
>national healthcare
No.
You're trying to squeeze out the benefits of the free market while setting aside the painful negative with myopic solutions. That shit is building up and someone will have to pay eventually. That's not even to mention just how fucking inefficient and corrupt government intervention is with its bloated budgets and failed goals. It's a larger waste of resources and will lead to even more painful consequences all under the facade of stability in the moment, even if that stability is figuratively fucking you in the ass.
Econ phd here. Austrian is a meme.
Chicago school is outdated, the only people that actually believe only in Chicago school policies are Latin American ministers that stopped reading econ papers in the 80s.
The great majority of current economists are Neo-Keynesian but without even knowing it, bc when you publish papers, the label of what you believe in doesnt matter. its the impact of your work.
Fuck you.
b&
How the fuck can you be an authoritarian AnCap?
> that's all short-term and avoiding the problem in the first place
It's supposed to be short term. You can't run a deficit long term, you should be running a neutral budget in the long run. And though you might not solve the problem, you certainly make it small enough that it isn't a problem for the next few years before another downturn. Austrian economics doesn't solve the problem anyhow.
Eventually Coke becomes so powerful they form their own authoritarian state.
Okay. Do you think governments are efficient with their short-term solutions given past real examples?
>Austrian economics doesn't solve the problem anyhow.
It's not being allowed to solve the problem since that would mean a withdrawal of power for certain entities. Gotta keep that power and infinite paycheck alive.
Is the basis of everything right win not Austrian economics or something close to it?
Since this is a farce does everything else right wing not fall to irrelevance?
No, I don't think the efficiency can keep up with ideal market conditions, but you don't need ideal to combat a recession. Just enough to kick start back the economy.
I think benefits of government intervention short term heavily outweigh its shortcomings.
Enstead of killing the nigger, your let them starve or kill them when they trespass
Also you segregate from them
Read Hoppe
Hoppe is total garbage
I've read some of Hoppe's work and I must say that I wasn't too impressed
shame, there isnt a more based individual alive
Argumentation ethics maybe, but the rest of his stuff is great. What have you read by him?
Ancaps are really naive, but they're have the right idea that competition is the key to a successful society.
Their only fault is they think the world is black and white, and don't realize that nation-states are already the result of Anarcho-Capitalism.
Left-wing economists like socialists are pure fucking cancer though. To what extent mixed economies exist are only to best preserve the general nature of capitalism and competition to keep the lazy low class retards content enough to not rise up and do something stupid like instil a communist government.
neoclassical keynsianism is the basis for modern globalist neoliberalism
Austrain economics has some upsides, but we would have frequent shock recessions and commodity collapses like the late 19th century, also it would be very hard to fund mega projects like nuclear reactors, massive cruise ships, and large buildings with tight, hard money
It took me years but I realized that rightwing state capitalism + post-Keynesian monetary policy was the final economic redpilll
The free competition in the production of goods is good, however free competition in the production of bads is not. Nation states arent so much a problem as democracy is, which before pending outcome of WW1 was considered a mistake
More like the purple pill
there is truth to this statement but post-keynes vastly understates inflation and stagflation
I agree democracy was a mistake as the unwashed masses are fucking stupid, but the US isn't really a real democracy anyway. It's a Democratic Republic which thankfully keeps a large amount of liberals from voting because they think it's pointless, and gives tiny right-wing states more electoral power.
The less people that vote, the better. Europe's mistake is that most of their populace actually votes, and it's lead to socialism.
republicanism is a more redpilled version of democracy but thats a fundamental problem is that we accept any form of public functionality. public function is socialism and is competition in the production of the most wasteful and harmful product.
...
Good luck changing that though. The founding fathers had the sense to avoid making the US a pure democracy, but now we have to work with what we have. Its basically just a game of manipulating culture enough to create positive outcomes in elections.
you can disagree with me and most people do, im welcome to hearing why you think so.
I understand you think Hoppe is garbage, im also welcome to hearing why you think so.
otherwise
>leaf
I'm a literal retard when it comes to economics so someone spoonfeed me on why government spending money into the economy by way of public works using a nationalized bank and limited regulations (things like safety and fighting degeneracy/corruption) on industries is not the best way.
secession: promote calexit texit and any other exit.
Because you are not the one doing it and its allways the (((plutocrates))) that are doing it for their own profit
The real Austrian School of economic.
Hoppe is just an extreme rightist that is upset at the disruption of "natural order" All of his writing are post-hoc justification for restoring natural order that is why his is a combination of fascism and libertarian.
who is that man with the glorious mustache
Yet non-interventionist policy keeps decline isolated to smaller portions of the economy while government interaction tends to cast doubt on the government acting as an economic actor while affecting the economy at large.
Even then, it's extremely difficult to find examples of government intervention in economy affecting depressions and recessions I.e., if the government's intervention to prevent instability in the market worked how would I know as the world doesn't exist in an Austrian text book?
Yet, you can find examples of government interference in economic matters completely destroying the economy. Likewise, to find a completely non-interventionist economy is absurd.
I pretty much do. I wish Texas had the same relation to the US as Hong Kong does to China, because their system and culture is great and shouldn't be tainted by the rest of the US.
California should exit so they realize how shitty their system is and come crawling back with a new perspective while the rest of the US doesn't have to deal with all those fucking liberal voters for a while screwing the rest of the nation.
Gottfried Feder
Keynesian economics failed too
So if government was less corrupt/more accountable then it would be a good solution?
i must go but posthoc justification is a legitimate critism for any posterori justification.
however his a priori theory is solid.
he doesnt support fascism and im pretty sure he doesnt use natural law to justify his claim, he uses the term natural to describe something but its not a reference to the theory in question
Don't try to argue with a Keynesian idiot, these people actually think Obama's economic policies helped the US.
Thats like asking "what if gravity doesn't exist?"
Keynes spending is meant to be temporary, not only that will gov actually spend money on useful shit or just gib it to niggers
NOPE VIOLATES THE NAP
The only reason the government should ever spend money on social programs is to prevent instability in the form of a revolution leading to a more disastrous government like the French Revolution that ruined France for eternity.
You only provide social services to keep undriven, unintelligent plebs just happy enough to let capable people run things while still maintaining a general atmosphere of competitiveness allowing genetically desirable people have the opportunity to achieve success.
Otherwise, a more competitive economy is always the optimal solution for societal progress.