>Marxism
>Keynesianism
>Austrian school
>Classical economics
>Neo-classical economics
>Behavioral economics
>Schumpeterianism
How come theres so many different interpretations of economics? Why can't economics agree on things? I thought it was a science? How come there's not a hundred different interpretations of other sciences, like biology, or physics?
Other urls found in this thread:
medium.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Bump
who's this semen terrorist
ill post more pics if some of you non-shill retards can explain this shit
Because Economics is a social science like psychology or gender studies and as opposed to a hard science like maths or physics.
Economics is the study or how humans behave when they trade with each other.
Because economics must usually be sustained through a pyramidal structure, so every single position of politics will set "your people" on top of that hypothetical pyramid.
wokest take gets nudes
muh
Nice thread. Okay, bye.
Divide and conquer tactic that has been in use since the founding of Babylon.
Contemporary answer: jews
Spanish women have got to be the hottest on the planet.
To answer your question OP: economics are not exact science, they're a social science just like sociology, political science, history, etc. Those sciences study the behavioral patterns of mankind and try to induct those patterns into general outlines
because you can't separe it from philosophy and politics, and there's a lot of conflicting view points
>I thought it was a science?
not when people treat it and defend it like religion, dumb zealots.
yea so this
but.. see, im a fan of the austrian school of economics, and i vehemently believe in free trade under some degree of state protectionism (especially in early phases). but yea i agree with this, theres no objective, quantifiable, eternal truth in economics. or, the only one is in psychological terms. the only "truths" in economics are how PEOPLE behave under certain circumstances. therefore, i think economics should be called the study of INCENTIVES, not actual money or trade
cont: economics are the study of scarcity and choice. There's no exact scientific way to predict how humans and markets will respond to certain things
because it's basically like weather forecasts. 1 person claims B will happen when you do A, others will say C will happen when you do A. And then there are retards that still defend ideas that have been proven wrong like trickle down economics.
(((Economic theories))) aren't "science",
they're doctrines of preferred human behaviour.
Economics, money, finance are nothing more than made up human things dependant on voluntary or involuntary participation by human beings. Perpetuated by mimicry (memetic)
Above all things resides the (((System))) in perfect karma neutrality.
It impedes upon its infected host (human mind) so severely that the host becomes unable to even imagine a srate of being without the (((Systems))) omnipresence.
BOLT-ONS
Checked retard
Agreed.
I think the key issue is not to ideologize all those economic theories, that's what socialists and lib dems do. Their entire belief system evolves around those economic theories because they have a materialized world view. As a right winger though I believe the economy should serve the nation, not the other way around. The nation shouldn't serve the free market or the state planned economy.
So yeah, no theory is exact. That's why sometimes it's necessary to do some public spending, while in other occassions it's better to let the free market do it's thing
What's most important is our nation though. I believe in the free market but it ends where our nation's borders begin. We don't need cheap labor from turd world countries
Physics is an exact science. We can do experiments and accumulate knowledge.
Economics is the science of human interaction. There are multiple ways to run a society's economy. There is room for debate over which way is best. And since we're dealing with human interaction, there are also ethical questions. Such as, is it okay to tax the productive citizens just to redistribute the fruits of their labor to niggers?
Gib nudz.
Ask yourself (((who))) gives the funding to the economic departments in universities and you'll get your answer.
See yourself who gets the nobel prizes and gets promoted to higher positions in academia: it's all mathematical models based on 0 empirical data and a few ridiculous assumptions that fall flat on its face.
It's a (((social science)))
Economics isn't science, it's politics.
>Why can't economics agree on things? I thought it was a science?
Science doesn't mean to "agree on things". Science means to use the scientific method, i.e. to oscillate between theory and empiry, and satisfy certain criteria like objectivity.
Economics, business and management are social science, not natural science. Social sciences are much less precise and predictable, and there are also problems with observation and gathering of objective empirical data: Therefore, in social sciences there are not so much precise formulas and theories, e.g. formula for how fast gravity accelerates mass, instead statistics plays a much larger role.
...
Its a pseudo-science full of autistic incels who couldn't make it in finance/accounting
To add on to this, people also differ wildly in what they believe the ideal society should be like, and thus how we should structure an economy around that ideal.
it's because people try to twist economics to fit their own political prescrpitions
Marxists twist economics. Libertarians twist economics. Corporations twist it when they want something passed in their favor.
It's a political football
There is a lot of overlap. Schumpeter was a pro market guy who believed in economic cycles. Marx was a statist who believed in economic cycles. Keynes was a middle of the road guy who believed in cycles. Behavioral economics is psychology applied to markets. Neoclassical is math retards who usually dont believe in market inefficiency and disregard denbts. Schumpeter and Keynes cared a lot about denbts and so did Adam Smith for that matter.
The big difference between schoolls is the emphasis they put on one factor. Marx: labour-capital dialectic
Keynes: State managed economic cycles
Schumpeter: long term economic cycles (took this from Kondratiev and expanded on it)
Neoclassical fanboys on Adam Smith: invisible hand
Adolf Hitler: The Jews
I want to breed with her.
Just because something is "scientific" doesn't mean its not stupid shit.
Especially when stuff is hard to quantify (e.g.. "how strong exactly is the effect of interest rates on savings?"), then you can argue for and against pretty much anything *cough keynesianism*.
That being said, these problems exactly are what make economics such an active topic. If you are into science, economics is probably the most active and research intensive area out there after medicine/life sciences.
You know what the fucking reason is?
It's logic vs data
It's rationalism vs empiricism
Empirism just can't prove anything, ultimately if we had 100% perfect data everything the austrian school says could be proven correct, but the economy has too many factors to measure things like unemployment after a raise of minimum wage.
Do you know about Hans Herman Hoppe Norwe-bro?
nudes naow!
>if we had 100% perfect data everything the austrian school says could be proven correct
Scientists don't all agree on things why should economists?
There is. No two people agree with eachother on physics
You're the retard. A monopoly in your definition is just a bakery in a small town fulfilling 100% of the need.
The true definition of a monopoly is one which can dictate price, if you can't dictate price you aren't a monopoly.
The free market will always provide you the best price, because the alternative is goverment intervention.
She's posed in Playboy, post em
WRONG, economists all agree, physicists all disagree.
>economics
because its poorly understood, variables are always changing. No economist will ever be 100% right about everything, thats just not the way it works.
you should learn about monopolies
so it's okay if a company hikes their price so long as the free market says it's okay?
>As a right winger though I believe the economy should serve the nation
well, therein lies another issue with economics: people cant agree what it SHOULD do. but when you grind it down to the study of incentives, it shouldnt matter. what then matters is, how do people behave in accordance to X, Y & Z.
But at the same time, how do you quantify the value of the state? The decentralization of sovereign states? We cant even agree on that. There seems to be an inherent incentive for people to think "bigger is better", and gravitate towards a singular world state. And i think only people who train themselves to go against their "lesser" instincts are able overcome this (destructive) tendency
i actually dont have nudes. sorry
well, see, keynes, in my opinion, was right at the time. he is probably the singular most important economist of the 20th century (this is coming from a believer in the austrian school), and he saved a lot of western countries from total collapse. buuuuuuuut, we now see, keynesianism fails to take the long-term into proper accord. it, but quite simply, fails to take into account the incentives of politicians who serve short terms and lack any motivation to think more than, say, 4 years ahead
>economists all agree
..................................no?
STOP POSTING THESE WOMEN ITS DEGENERATE
Because it can be measured objectively but retards think it's related to social and psychological phenomenon as well which it really isn't to any major factor. It is more closely related to freedom vs coercion. We (us currently alive) have never had a choice in what currency we trade with thanks to governments, we haven't had a free market in the past 100 years so there's no point measuring anything recent. And if you are using "recent data" then rest assured it's completely wrong as government interference in the market muddies the water beyond belief. Then we start having economists who factor in government decision which is a whole other clusterfuck of confusion as people react differently to coercion.
tl:dr the only way to measure economies objectively and accurately is to have it free of government control.
>Filename
Way to give away your leverage OP.
With regard to the intellectual side, it's largely a question of epistemology and by derivation the nature of man as an entity.
Keynsians and their derivatives believe they can account for all eventualities because they are determinists and reject free will.
By contrast, Austrians believe in a-priori facts - that is, truths that are divorced from empirical evidence.
If you analyze the different schools from the perspective of their starting point, you'll see why each school believes what it does.
Incidentally, 'Hard sciences' require an underlying philosophy also - empiricism.
A company cannot hike it's price on the free market and retain a monopolist position, it literally cannot achieve it if you measure the scale higher than 1 city.
If you hike your prices a competitor can come in and take away your customers, what's so hard to understand about this?
You are here to defend your arguments, the natura monopolies theory is retarded, because it's logic is as follows:
Free market = monopoly
Goverment intervention = free market
Therefore
Free market = Goverment Intervention
>He saved a lot of western countries from total collapse
Name one thing he was right about.
>tl:dr the only way to measure economies objectively and accurately is to have it free of government control.
yea, see, except, having governments is essential to economic prosperity. if you disagree, move to somalia & try out anarchy instead
i agree with your point, though. but the difficulty, for me, is to know exactly HOW much government
Ok
>Behavioral economics
This is the only one that takes into account actual human behavior. Assuming people make rational economic decisions is retarded.
if it's simple people will understand it and there will be no more loop holes to abuse which would lead to a fair and balanced situation which is not in their interest
>Name one thing he was right about.
that having governments artificially regulate liquidity can help push fiat currencies out of deflation? this shit is pretty basic
natural monopolies do exist, the US was muh free market for a couple hundred years, and we saw monopolies in steel and railroads rise up. if gov intervention never happened there, we'd still be bent over to the rockefellers
So are you saying printing money creates wealth? How does that work?
>Do you know about Hans Herman Hoppe Norwe-bro?
didnt see this
no
is his shit any good?
You have no proof of that, the STANDARD OIL is one big fucking myth the left tells to their children.
It was a major force of the market because it was the best, when other companies caught up with quality they could rivalise.
sometimes government intervention can create more competition, and better outcomes for consumers
>Scenario A
Let's say I hire a person to build a garden by my house. Then afterwards, that person claims ownership over that porch, and tries to charge me any time I want to enter it. Since they have a monopoly position over me, they can extract huge payments, in return for watering the plants and repairing the fence.
>Scenario B
However, in a different scenario let's say after the construction is done, I get the ownership of the garden. Then when I need the garden to be watered or maintained, I take bids from 100 different companies, and pick the one that offers the best deal.
In scenario A, I am at the mercy of a monopoly. In scenario B, 100 different companies are all competing to offer me lower prices and better services.
That's why public infrastructure is usually owned by the local government, and the maintenance and upkeep is bid out to a variety of different companies. That way there's far more competition than simply putting it in the hands of a monopoly
there's no catching when super rich corps own the gov, passing laws that discourage the little guy from competeing. your free market dream will always end with the super rich fucking the proles. unbridled capitalism ends that way time and time again
>fiat currency is in deflation
>deflating values discourage commerce
>government creates bonds & sells them, thereby DECREASING amount of money
>less liquidity = currency is now worth more.
>value of currency increases, encouraging investment & commerce
OR they can do the exact opposite
>currency is deflated
>people dont buy shit
>government INCREASES liquidity by printing money and putting it out into the market
>people now have more money to buy shit. they buy shit, and businesses are stimulated into more manufacturing
>production and consumption increases, thereby increasing value of fiat currency
both of these things work. keynes was a genius (again, im NOT a keynesian. at ALL. im 100% Hayek & austrian economics). what keynes failed to take into account is that politicians handed the power to do these things lack the incentive to think far ahead, and so the governments just keep borrowing money until they drown in debt
even if you disagree with it, i advise you read up on keynesianism. its helpful to understand
It stimulates the economy and that lowers unemployment. More people working means more wealth production. Lyndon Johnsonism and Martinism.
Jesus you people are fucking leftist. I will leave saying just this:
PRINTING PAPER DOESN'T CREATE WEALTH.
IF IT DID, AFRICA WOULD BE ON MARS RIGHT NOW.
Printing money does create wealth which is why Americas GDP went up with QE
>>people now have more money to buy shit. they buy shit, and businesses are stimulated into more manufacturing
none of that is real wealth, the production and consuption increasing isn't inscreaing the value of shit, it's just spinning wheels
i explained it to you here
hey im not trying to defend john maynard keynes here, im not saying its real wealth. but it does STIMULATE PRODUCTION, which leads to increased capital & consequent prosperity
You're just a retarded leftist pol
All economic theories address one fundamental question: How should society deal with a world of scarce resources, and how should these resources be used most efficiently for the betterment of as many people as possible?
In terms of this question the record of history is clear classical economics (lassiez fare capitalism) is superior not just by a small margin but by an overwhelming landslide of titanic proportions.
Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb and you'll understand.
nice, i just bought it actually. gonna read it as soon as im done with some thomas sowell
Classical laissez faire economics takes human nature into account by assuming at the root of its philosophy people are motivated primarily by self-interest and survival, not altruism or group-think like leftism falsely asserts.
While man is a social animal, he is self-interestedly social.
Man worked with other men to form the tribe in the early days of civilization primarily in the interest in self protection and sustainability, not because he really cares too much about the welfare of other non-related individuals.
By agreeing to protect his tribe by joining a warrior party, others also agree to the same thereby protecting him and his immediate family gaining him the strength necessary for his own survival.
Long story short: why economics is a joke.
you don't know hoppe? he's like hayek, opposite of kenyes basically
youtube.com
All science is a joke.
alright, cool
i kinda feel like i dont need to read his books, because ive already grinded through about 10 books of austrian economics, and the layman-books kinda start repeating themselves after a while. but maybe im wrong, im basing all of this on a five second glance at his wikipedia-article.
ill see if he has some shit on youtube
cant wait
>fan of Austrian economics
>doesn't know about Hoppe
ISHYGDDT
Black swan explains why some science and experts are real and legit and why some science is fucking garbage:
>"The Black Swan explains the domain-dependence of expertise: why the electrician, dentist, are experts, while the journalist, State Department bureaucrat, and macroeconomist are not. Since then, there has been a global movement against the pseudo-expert, the serial incompetence of a certain class of babbling and pompous operatives across bureaucrato-academic professions. Which leads to the question: who is the real expert? Who decides on who is and who is not expert? Where is the metaexpert? Time it is. Or, rather, Lindy."
Like this article:
medium.com
screw you, ive read Peter Schiff, Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Walter Block & even John fucking Stossel. I know my austrian economics
but *fine* ill look into this guy
lol
pol always recommends Democracy: The God That Failed, though i've never read it
I'm just memeing.
alright, that book is now on my list. thanks
too late, i have to read his stupid book now
Don't worry, Hoppe is based. And he has a few ideas that differentiate him from other Austrian economists, most notably his advocacy for Monarchism over Democracy, and physical removal of leftists.
well, alright, thats interesting
just finished reading "Rights of Man" by #1 founding father Thomas Paine, and its basically just a giant BTFO of monarchism... good to get both viewpoints
>Keynes
Redpilled choice of course.
>advocacy for Monarchism
yuck, why? The family is more likely to be corrupted than well balanced democracy
>Women get vote in west
>women become half the electorate
>women vote for welfare state
>welfare sate is bigger government
>bigger government requires more taxes
>welfare state incentives single mothers
>government becomes surrogate fathers
>single mothers raise niggers
>niggers cause more crimes
>niggers create more single mothers
>bigger government creates mandatory gibs spending
>women will never vote away welfare state
>every solution to problems caused by welfare state = more welfare state
>families destroyed and birth rates plummet
>immigration to replace births
>men loose incentive to support system
>social collapse
>using bridges as an example
nigga now I know your dumb
>a family that owns the land the land around
>that can decide to do whatever they wanted with their land
>corruption can happen
how does corruption happen in first place? this isn't contracts being given to the highest bidder like in the us, this is the king/father deciding what to do with his land
mr ancap, you should know that theres no difference between "highest bidders" and "kings" and "fathers". its all just people
what needs to managed isnt one group of people over another, but incentives. to put people in positions wherein which they cant undermine liberal values. people are just people
ok, tell me this Sup Forums. Why can't we have a system like they had in NatSoc Germany where the state runs the banks, prints the money, and no one has to suffer from (((debt)))
>men loose incentive to support system
We are at this point (MGTOW)
because more government isnt a solution, its a problem
read "Why Nations Fail", its probably the #1 best book on that exact question you are asking
that book fails to talk about the only thing that matters in a nation, race.
There has got to be an economic system that
works and is fair to the people. No person should have to suffer from debt and no hard working american should have to suffer from finanical stress.
i get what you are getting at, but its not how it works in practiaclity
the very nature of the democracy and the monarchy is simply different
a king by definition cannot be corrupt as it is HIS land, his positions to fill with people if he would need workers
in a democracy it is not up to a man to decide because none of what is made by his democracy is his, as it is everyone's. the corruption can only come into play with these federal agents (or even agents appointed by the king and given power) who do not own what they are doing and therefore can even possibly do wrong and fall into corruption.
>There has got to be an economic system that
>works and is fair to the people
there is: laissez faire capitalism
>No person should have to suffer from debt and no hard working american should have to suffer from finanical stress
you sound like a communist
>you sound like a communist
I'm not a communist. I love my country and my people. I just want a system that is fair and where hard working people don't have to suffer from debt slavery. I understand basic economics like why we can't just tax the shit out of the rich
Because statistics are realy hard to interpret and we humans are not realy good at logical thinking ... We are scared, tribal and motivated by emotions most of the time
okay i understand this, but "king" in that equation can still be replaced by any variant of "totalitarian ruler", including "communist dictator".
because when someone is the #1 guy who owns everything, he is incentivized to maintain his position at all costs (for reasons he convinces himself are benevolent), and so this means anyone who is financially successful (outside of his thumb) is a threat to his monopoly on power. and so he has incentives to diminish individual economic success among his subjects, essentially leading to a severe lack of economic development
look at ANY feudal system, and ANY unliberal economic system today, and this pattern is inherently evident. only in countries where the state is strong enough to PROTECT your property rights, but too weak to SUPPRESS your property rights, is there economic prowess