Keynesian vs. Austrian

Which one is right, or is Economics just one big spook?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk
youtu.be/GTQnarzmTOc
bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&ab_channel=EconStories
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MULT
youtube.com/watch?v=w8fCmUbjDtg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

One big spook.
You cant accurately predict human behavior and reaction

Economics is a fake science, and most contemporary economists should be thrown into prison.

inb4 muh PhD. You might as well get a PhD in lesbian contemporary literature.

Sage or report spam. Notice the OP asks an unanswerably broad question, in one line, with no context or source. And then never appears again, because he's busy posting another one-line unanswerably broad question.

Austrian, as reality has shown.

Keynesian is very rigid and fixes itself with completely pointless behaviors and nonsensical loops that cause bubbles and ignore variations of outcome due to exterior circumstances and influences.

Austrian can not fix itself because it implies that the economy is a result of actions that have meaning and consequences. It does not predict short term, or present the ease of access and utilization that Keynesian can, but it can provide vital perspective into preventative measures against bubbles and regulations / laxes that would otherwise cause short term revenue in lieu of long term profit or investment.

To put it simple, Keynesian is very establishment-based and Austrian is very humanity-driven. This is not to say Austrian is completely better, because there's certain ways our industries and companies work that would be completely ignored by Austrian conceptualization. There's a sort of middle ground possible but I'll be damned if we can actuate it.

I feel I need to clarify. "Austrian can not fix itself" essentially means that to correct faults, an Austrian economist would look at causes, possibilities, potentials, outcomes, and variables while dipping, whilst a Keynesian economist during a fault would stall with the water treading / treadmill running that Keynesian is so known for (ala paying diggers to dig holes, then paying them to fill them back up)

Austrian economics as in Hitler's economics

You can use mathematical models to predict certain aspects of the economy
Its more than a regular pseudoscience

This is not to say a Keynesian won't analyze or reasses, but that they do not see a problem with their immense emphasis on growth. A flat lining economy to a Keynesian is almost worse than receding, because it's easier to show growth after a controlled dip. Keynesian appeals greatly to those who can manipulate the markets, despite their own researches and dealings being much more Austrian influenced than their actions.

Waiting for responses to pile up. I would tell you to suck a dick, but you'd probably enjoy that you fucking faggot.

I feel strongly there's an odd hierarchy to mentality within the economic field

>get rich quick tier
Keynesian
>get richer right
Austrian
>gain envy of Soros
butterfly discrepancies

Hope I didn't just completely waste my time. I can only assume nobody read a single word.

>Which one is right,

only Henry George is right, the rest of them are criminals

Economics is one big spook. You have to constantly adjust to what your nation needs. Strictly adhering to one system and never being flexible is a recipe for disaster.

I agree but economics should really just be considered a branch of philosophy, in that sense it can be a sensible pursuit of study but unfortunately it's only used to steal

I'm reading. As an economic illiterate, your posts are interesting, friendo.

>Strictly adhering to one system and never being flexible is a recipe for disaster.

thats not true if you adhere to a moral system that reflect your nation and values

>This is not to say a Keynesian won't analyze or reasses,

they won't have much time for that once they're all lined up against the wall

Keynesianism answered questions that the autistrians couldn't, but ultimately, neither.

We're talking about economics, friendo.

Morality is static and only degenerates think it's relative.

Which questions?

As someone who has read keynes, von mises, and krugman, I also read your posts.

Not sure why there would be a middle ground when the basic assumptions of the two schools are contradictory...

Hitler's regime instated keynesian policies, user.

Austrian Economics is a huge meme.
Keynesian Economics is actually taken seriously and can predict a lot of things meaningfully.

His mentality of property tax over income tax has absolutely no application in modern terms. It is completely outdated and never presumed the kinds of societies we have now.

An even larger reason why George was short minded, is his opinions on intellectual property and complete aversion to concepts like copyrighting. In modern days, these things are invaluable to actual inventors, despite the abuse of them in the opposite regard.

How can you line people up against a wall if you're already falling from the helicopter?

I appreciate the affirmation. I merely enjoy sharing information, and I ask for no personal merit or accreditation, only the knowledge that somebody is learning.

thats right, thats why the only moral way to tax is to tax land based on use with a focus of breaking up monopoly in all it's forms

this shit isn't that hard to do, the French used to do it before (((they))) showed up, the Chinese do this now

explains why they're kicking our asses so bad

Once 3D printers REALLY take off in terms of versatility and complex-object synthesis, expect 'economics' to have all the applications of medieval humors medicine or alchemy.

>the basic assumptions of the two schools are contradictory...

brotherhood of the snake

youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk

muh fence-sitting centrism

And there's the second post.

See you next single-broad-vague-question thread you shilling fuck.

I'd love to see the metrics of unique users and how many threads they create.

tell that to the Rothschilds

>Economics just one big spook
Modern economics is.
Ancient economics was how shit got done, with actual bartering for equally useful goods instead of some stupid fucking intermediate.

>You cant accurately predict human behavior and reaction
this. modern economics neglects to account for human needs and only accounts for human greed. farmers in afghanistan produce opium poppies because it's profitable; what happens then is no afghan farmers make edible crops, so everyone gets to "buy" their food from international sources, even though logically it would make more sense to fucking grow locally.

modern economics is fucking insane.

The theoretical approaches are not fundamentally opposite, merely the actualization of the concepts are. That is why I say a middle ground can exist, yet not be actualized.

When you realize the relation between interest rates and GDP have changed with modern international legislation and banking, you begin to see how modernization has caused a theoretical connection between the two schools of thought. A debt bridge, if you will, because despite discussion of savings vs spending, debt is the driving factor in relation to growth of income.

No step, brother.

austrian was an examination of how empires were built and sustained economically, which most legit empires, including the american empires growth to super power status, followed. Keynsians think they can concoct giant equations that only work if you say "all else remaining equal" as you cant make an equation to figure out "everything" and says that we can just pretend wealth and things will be better.

History has the backs of austrian (von mises) as proof it works. Keynesians have the opposite, you can literally watch the decline of america happen as the keynesians take over. Keynesian economics is a model devised to create an enviroment where the population would want communism, though the decline in capitalism benefitting them, which is exactly what is resulting from Keynesianism. But hey, we all make around the same (adjusted for inflation another keynesian product) as our parents did 50 years ago despite being many times more productive at what we do, all while everything around us became exponentially more expensive.

As yourself what life would be like for yourself if you could be able to pay for a full college education, a new car, and a home for two years work. Hell you could have forgone the college degree, gotten a job in the mailroom, and worked your way to managment, something completely foreign to today's kids. Youll always be that 50K a year workers in todays world, unless you fork over $35k for another degree and maybe youll get a better job. They did to college what they did to money.


Anyway....read von mises, look at charts plotting money value paired to gold, for all empires and youll see the same stable natural growth, then look at modern times with the same graphs and youll see chaos.

Economics is kind of a math enabled philosophy. This makes things very very confusing....I noticed that the word value was used once in entire thread. baka desu senpai Consider for a moment what happens when you get totally distracted with the math that you forget what in the fuck you're supposed to be measuring.

IN EGONOMICS WE ARE MEASURING VALUE, THE GOMMODITY IS JUST A PROXY FOR THAT VALUE.
pls don't forget this when studying how other people have forgotten this.

It's not wrong to take points from both side and determine from all information available. To limit yourself to one school of thought does not allow you to be really sure in your ideology, because you can't even challenge your own thoughts.

The entire concept that interest rates or pure revenue determine growth wholly regardless of each other is flawed, and whilst neither school does this fully, that is the general root of the discussion. They are both intrinsic aspects of a modular system, the nodes of which are changing greatly due to our internationalization and newer legislation.

>How can you line people up against a wall if you're already falling from the helicopter?

bro my grandfather owns the company that services those helicopters everywhere on the globe

>It is completely outdated and never presumed the kinds of societies we have now.

thats why China uses it now? thats why Trump has been talking to economists from the George school of thought exclusively?

get with the times, we're nationalists now

>his opinions on intellectual property and complete aversion to concepts like copyrighting. In modern days, these things are invaluable to actual inventors,

those things are invaluable to useless middle men, the inventors and creators always get stiffed , their works remaindered, the creators in our society get a scant pittance of the revenues generated from their works, get rid of those laws which shift cost to the taxbase to protect monopoly and you will see not only do creators earn more, everyone earns more, because you shafted the rat scumbags who always steal everything

just think about this rationally, George says tax land with the most use the highest, thats trading floors, jack up the tax on trading floors until they don't exist, this is worth it just for the laughs

or are you about to tell me how necessary trading floors are to our culture? because I assure you we can get along just fine without them, or they can pay the tax the casino gets brought back down to earth and everybody has to get a real job that actually produces something no more free money train

youtu.be/GTQnarzmTOc

GOAT

glorified weathermen

troll or retarded

keynesianism is just a really bad idea abused by politicians, bankers and establishment at large.

austrian school is the one that recognises the truths at the core of what economics is a study of. it also predicts and analyses in advance what is going to go wrong in keynesian systems.

theres a reason why the main proponents of keynesian bullshit are elitist establishment dumb fucks like krugman and austrian proponents are often self made rich like peter schiff.

I'm reading.. How does any of what you wrote matter when the federal reserve exists?

>tell that to the Rothschilds

I'm always telling them that shit but they don't care, they're just hot shot big wig gamblers, they're entirely absorbed in their gambling culture

"you see what i did there? i, uh, used skepticism™ to argue both sides"

Economics is a set of understood common sense.
Austrian = Supply side economics; belief that Total economic GDP is controlled by firms and people; so cut taxes to help both.

Keynesian = Demand side; Aggregate demand is controlled by Government spending, increase exports, consumption. Give free $ to increase GDP.

Although one can increase GDP by controlling left or the right. Supply side is more effective!!
My vote-Austrian economics

It's a math-enabled philosophy where all of the math never gives a more accurate answer than random guessing.

It's more useful when it just sticks to plain philosophy.

>keynesianism is just a really bad idea abused by politicians, bankers and establishment at large.

who funded him, that will answer all your questions

You are supposed to learn Economics and then use that knwledge to decide based on country especifics.
If it was as easy as just picking one school and follow it blindly we would not be debating anything today, the best school would have been proven superior by now.

These aren't the only two schools of economics.

You cannot have Keynesian economics without an ethno-state otherwise you will inevitably somewhere along the way be getting no return on your investments.

If you want to flood your country with 3rd world trash then the Free Market is the only way.

Redpill me on butterfly discrepancies. Google isn't being helpful.

Chicago :^)

You know how nationalism ends.

And to call China's economy influenced by Henry George is shortsighted. Maybe in regards to some aspects, but the exact opposite in many. China loves to put tariffs and taxes on things, but they do not have property taxes, as George saw absolutely vital to a proper economy.

To ignore the value of intellectual property rights is the same as saying the inventors of products should get absolutely nothing for being innovative. You say the copyright system fucks inventors? Sure, occasionally to a small degree, but holy shit how fucked they would be without it.

George's systems would have completely failed after WW2 when marketing became huge, and agriculture expanded to immense proportions. The level of fucked that farmers and inventors would be would be unaccountable to the point of societal collapse.

Dear Keynesians,

You're wrong.

Best regards

Reality

...

Because the people running the federal reserve think in ways influenced by these schools, and to extrapolate from there in manners which I have stated I can assume where their schools of thought lay in the current age.

Not sure about you, but I recognize the impact any individual can have on the world if proper effort is made.

This is the real danger of socialism, right here. We're going to build an elaborate ideology to deal with incredibly simple human matters, and get ourselves lost in the complexity for fun and profit. It seems, maybe at first, foolish to consider modern economic theory so closely related to Marxian thought...however, it's worth considering that Marx, Keynes, and von Mises have somewhat interchangeable ideas how people value their commodities and thus their fair market value....

Economics is a literal fucking meme as far as predictive utility. Anyone that can predict the economic future can do so because of social connections and good research.

Both schools are flawed, at least in terms of modern economics.

Both assert, to some degree that the market is perfectly rational, that things are priced because of supply and demand. You can see that assertion is false simply by looking at how commodities are traded through futures. Supply and demand come from abstract futures contracts and not from the underlying physical assets. Oil currently is priced far cheaper than physical supply would indicate, simply because speculators believe that supply will increase, with no evidence to support it.

Even worse with gold, people are trading instruments theoretically redeemable in gold but more of these trading instruments exist than physical gold does. They can't all be redeemed at once, or ever, they are simply trading 'paper gold' which effects the price of physical good.

The market is illogical as fuck and it only barely resembles traditional models because people believe in those models. At the end of the day, it's all you believe hard enough it will be true! That isn't sustainable, hence the volatility of the market. Prices will fluctuate even if supply and demand are both inelastic, directly invalidating traditional economic models.

But in the long run we are all dead :(
Do you want to sit there waiting for the market to fix itself from its own disequilibriums?

pretty much all of the early austrian economists hated the Nazi systems so no.

The joke was that Hitler was born in Austria

Consider that policy makers do not intend to predict but to direct.

So both schools believe in manipulating the value of the dollar and stealing wealth from citizens?

A very understood and recognized concept in economics is that of discrepancies. AKA look for the thing that is over/under valued, and abuse it until it normalizes.

A butterfly discrepancy is a simple discrepancy, but noticed so early that there is virtually no sign of it occuring yet. The concept behind the name is application of the butterfly effect, which is basically just the concept of cause and effect on an extremely detailed scale.

If you were to say, determine weather patterns that showed a potential drought, or certain crops to die or flourish, or you noticed how certain holidays fell on the same day for the first time in two hundred years. It's difficult to provide examples because it's so miniscule and arbitrary.

It's arguable that with modernization, the only potential for impactful discrepancies are human acts and water availability.

Both schools desire to provide a basis for growth. Growth being higher value of the dollar. This could be defined in some way as manipulation, yes. They attempt to achieve this in different ways, however.

Neither specifically desires to take wealth away from the common man, because more wealth for the common man = more wealth for the rich man, despite many greedy raw Keynesians thinking otherwise.

yet the value of the dollar has fallen steadily since the feds inception

>Dear Keynesians,
>You're wrong.
>Best regards
>Reality
This!

They're both wrong.
>muh private debt doesn't matter
>muh commodity money
>muh debt money

We also operate on a fiat currency, which realistically ignores true value. So we technically aren't discussing anything at all.

q:^]

I'm gonna end by saying that objectively, spooks are the one true spook.

It's not fiat it's debt.
Fiat is law based/created by govt.
Debt is what we have today/created by banks when they make loans.
bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

that was my point

Ok, that makes sense. Basically the process stock traders used to use (before index stocks screwed up the market) when buying unknown stocks with good fundamentals before the general population found out about them. Thanks for the info.

I'm afraid you misunderstand our governments' relationships with the IMF.

The USD is essentially backed by every commodity in the world, since commodities are priced in USD. Eg, you can effectively only buy gold with dollars.

All the more reason to spend it as fast as you can! Don't save money, it could magically become useless overnight, goyim!

Yeah, it's literally just an extremely detailed version of any non-bearish and non-formulaic investment on a large scale.

That's a solid point to make. Generally these days it's considered a petrol-dollar though. I'm very curious to know how the next twenty years will effect that and if your point will be more applicable than ever.

The answer no one wants to hear is that it depends on the circumstances but that's not comforting.

Is that why virtually all professional economists are Keynesians and the Austrian School isn't taken seriously by them at all?

>hyperinflation
That's a fair point, but not what I was trying to imply.

Austrian

see
>Keynesian appeals greatly to those who can manipulate the markets, despite their own researches and dealings being much more Austrian influenced than their actions.

It's a pretty important distinction to make nonetheless.
Especially considering mainstream economics still believe that private banks "multiply" central bank money when that hasn't ever been true.

Multiply might be a hyperbole but it's impossible to ignore the fact that they do, in fact, essentially do just that.

Austrians want natural growth through savings and investment. The con is that you get people saving too much which leads to slow growth and low money multiplier.
Keynesian want to use deficit spending and artificially low interest rates to spur spending creating growth. The con is that the newly created money creates a bubble and then eventually leads to inflation. Which will force the central bank to raise rates which will lead to a bursting of the bubble.
Essentially this boom-bust cycle we have had since the 90's is a Keynesian cycle.
The best analogy I can think of is that they are like the tortoise and the hair. Austrians being the tortoise.
youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&ab_channel=EconStories

Mainstream economics are a meme, they have no idea what's going on.
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MULT
Except that they don't, read the paper I linked. Banks can't possible "lend out of reserves" due to simple accounting rules and the only thing the reserve requirement does is being the top limit them in their lending but banks pretty much never reach that point.

The concept of banks do exactly that. You are right to state that the current interest rates are denying them that capability currently. There's new loan bubbles currently forming that are going to really mess with things soon though and I doubt that loaning is even going to be viable in ten years without palpable backing.

...

They call it 'petrol-dollar' because petroleum is generally considered the most important commodity and it's price directly effects the price of other commodities. Also it's a buzzword made back when oil was a bigger political issue than it is now. Maybe call it 'commoditybux' now.

You are right, though. I know OPEC wanted to try to price it's petroleum in Yuan to try to untangle it's economy away from the USA, but I don't it went anywhere. In the future with alternative energies petroleum prices will probably be less directly tied to other commodities.

I would also argue national fiat currencies could be pegged to the prices of specific baskets of commodities. It sort of works that way anyways, the Australian dollar follows the price of iron ore very closely. The ruble tracks oil prices. That'd open up too many opportunites for arbitrage, though. Same reason the USA stopped using the gold standard.

Consider that China could trade billions in toxic dog food and cheap plastic items, the US, receive payment in dollars, then prompty go and redeem them for gold from Fort Knox. They'd essentially be trading garbage for gold. That's what ended up happening so they reverted to fiat.

>You are right to state that the current interest rates are denying them that capability currently.
More like QE inflating base money supply.
>There's new loan bubbles currently forming that are going to really mess with things soon though and I doubt that loaning is even going to be viable in ten years without palpable backing.
It's viable since banks create money for basically free.

I'm a fan of the Lucas Islands model. You can stimulate an economy as long as the market doesn't expect it. Once certain stimulus becomes to regular it has no or a detrimental effect on the market. The US economy is in a bubble right now. I look at job boards as an indicator of labor tightening.

Sili-dollar doesn't have the same ring though, hah.

You know, since electronics are gonna beat what beats petrol out, and silicon...now I'm actually really wondering what the next coined (hahaha puns) term for it will be.

Kenya vs Australia

Can't say I really would trust either either money

Printing money directly relates to interest rates though.

And what I mean is that the banks won't be looking for people to loan to, as they tend to do in times of booms, while in ten years time that's not going to be an option for them due to certain circumstances.

Just note that if you think this is a legitimate question, you know nothing about economics.

*printing money is supposed to have a direct relation to interest rates

Yeah I do guess reality sometimes delays one or the other due to bank greed.

Well can't be bothered to explain it when drunk but this guy has some interesting ideas.
youtube.com/watch?v=w8fCmUbjDtg