[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 145 KB, 918x560, 1384134851369.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
716587 No.716587 [Reply] [Original]

who had a better economic theory.
Keynes, Marx or Hayek?

>> No.716589

Not Marx, that's for sure.

>> No.716593

>>716587
No irony... One is a unit in the collective; the other is an individual. One takes up arms to impose the collective will; one takes up arms to defend an individual will.

Try to think outside the bumper sticker kid.

>> No.716596

>>716587
1. Hayek
2. Keynes
.
.
.
99. Marx

>> No.716597
File: 15 KB, 162x227, friedman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
716597

>>716587
Friedman.
Austrians go home pls. Your school of economics has been outdated by the Chicago school for more than half a century now.

Also, the whole premise of the Austrian school is insane. No, you can't have the benefits of mathematical reasoning without the rigor of mathematical reasoning. Fuck you von Hayek, you knew nothing about mathematics.

>> No.716600

>>716597
I meant von Mises, geez I'm retarded.

>> No.716614

>>716587

There's no irony in that pciture

Wtf is this bullshit?

>> No.716936
File: 235 KB, 918x560, good-and-evil-stupid-not-irony.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
716936

>>716587
>hurr durr they are both holding a book and a gun therefore their viewpoints are comparable
>no idea what "irony" means

>> No.716957

>>716936
You have evil and good confused in your image.

>> No.716969

>>716957
This.

>> No.716995

>>716957
Edgy

>> No.716997

>>716995
Just like Maoists and libertarians.

>> No.716999

>>716936
Yours isn't ironic or parody, it's just incorrect.

>> No.717049

>>716587
Belloc.

>> No.717075

Schacht

>> No.717079

>>716600
You are retarded, Austrian school is best school

>> No.717166

>>716587
>Marx
Most of Marx's predictions came true. More than almost any economist.

Marx and Engels pointed out that the world had a series of dominating economic systems through history - they were just coming out of feudalism into capitalism, and said socialism was next. That has not come to pass yet.

>> No.717180

>>717166
Marx was well known for his observation, "Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana..."

>> No.717184

>>717079
No. It's basically the pseudoscience of economics (which is itself a soft science).
>>717166
Observing that the economies have changed over time is no great revelation. Also, true socialism will not happen for reasons similar to why true capitalism does not happen. The world uses a mixed economy and that does not appear to be changing any time soon.

>> No.717367

>>716597
I'm a mathematician and please don't hide behind mathematics. Austrian school is rigorous, it uses deductive reasoning, the same sort that mathematicians use. The premise is that people act, which is entirely believable, that just don't conduct non repeatable 'experiments' without a control group and call it science.

>> No.717381

>>716587
Chinese citizens are unarmed faggot.

Not even security guards can use guns.

>> No.717382

>>717184
>>what is automation

Are you jusrt purposefully being dull?

Were going to be living in a second gilded age within 20 years. most of us mooks will be lucky to grt a shitty "basic income" with soylent vouchers and government sponsored cubbies

>> No.717410

Marx is not an economist. He was an economic historian and a philosopher. Notice how both of those labels offer absolutely nothing useful to the world.

>> No.717442

>>717410

Economists barely have anything useful to do with the world.

Trickle down economics was a load of shit when it first dropped out of one of their arses.

>> No.717453

>>716587
keynes

>> No.717522

I have a crazy belief the eventual future is heavily socialist (100 yrs).

>> No.717525

>>717522

that's what people said 100 years ago, and they were right

however, to quote Margaret Thatcher the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money; Europe is experiencing this as their professional class moves to the US and as the elites simply move money offshore to dodge taxes.

100 years from now, it's very doubtful socialism, at least the style popularized in europe, will continue to exist

>> No.717538

Keynes - Tax the cash
Marx - Salary cap
Hayek - Don't try to fix it

>> No.717545

testing if banned

>> No.717559

>>716999
What if I told you... Hitler did nothing wrong?

>> No.717591

>>716587
I'm inclined to say Hayek.

I think perhaps Keynesian economics could work in a society where defecit spending wasn't a thing, i.e. the govt. couldn't spend shitloads of cash in a boom to become popular and then borrow shitloads of cash in a bust to remain popular. A society where people couldn't have the cake and eat it, short-term at least.

>> No.717632

Hayek says in his YouTube video song that we should fear the boom, not the bust. This makes no sense.

>> No.717635

>>717632
It ends up destroying capital and makes the bust worse.
>>717591
Spending to increase aggregate demand during a bust is kind of the point. The problem comes (imo) when they keep spending during the boom instead of taking away the punch bowl.
>>717382
>shitposting loudly

>> No.717668

>>717525
the problem with Thatcherism is you eventually run out of public property to sell.

>> No.717687

>>717367
>Austrian school is rigorous
Bullshit, every single one of their "theorems" uses hidden assumptions.

>> No.717689

>>717687
Who is hiding what assumptions? What assumptions have been hidden in which 'theorem' [a term I've never heard an Austrian use].

>> No.717695

>>717689
The Austrian school is built entirely on assumptions (so-called 'unquestionable' axioms) and intentionally ignores mathematical modelling in favor of deduction.

tl;dr the Austrian school is just what they'd like to be true rather than what is actually true.

>> No.717697

>>717689
>a term I've never heard an Austrian use
>what is the regression theorem

>> No.717706

>>717695
No shit it uses assumptions, how are they hidden?

>>717697
Yeah so I have heard it. So which assumptions are hidden and who hides them?

>> No.717728

>>717706
No, fuck that, I'm not gonna copy the whole Mises demonstration.
Suffice to say the fact that buttcoins do have a market value tears a new one into Mises theory's butthole. When the world contradicts your theory it's time to admit your rigorous unquestionable school is shit.

>> No.717730

>>717728
>Suffice to say the fact that buttcoins do have a market value tears a new one into Mises theory's butthole.
Could you elaborate on that?

>> No.717733

>>717730
Among other things, the regression theorem states that no money could have originated from a valueless thing as a result of a social agreement, because all moneys have value because they rely on their value or another money's value on the previous day.
Too bad that's precisely what happened with bitcoins, because Mises hid, without saying it, the assumption that value can not come from the potential utility that agents see in the existence of a more efficient form of money. And this assumption is wrong, as shown by bitcoins.

>> No.717771

Math/Econ here, Keynes > Hayek > Marx

>> No.717792
File: 63 KB, 777x432, 1422769733274.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
717792

>>716957
>captcha maymay

>> No.717843

>>717733
Buttcoin doesn't satisfy the definition of money that Mises used.

I thought you were at least going to show me an interesting contradiction.

>> No.717879

>>717635
>The problem comes (imo) when they keep spending during the boom instead of taking away the punch bowl.
Yes, that's exactly what I tried to say but I probably should have worded it better.

I think a Keynesian economy in the "original" sense (aka govt saving in a boom and govt spending of those savings in a bust) could work.

Unfortunately I don't think this could work in any democracy, simply because of how people tend to vote.

>> No.717887

>>716587
your pic
one is a delusional young man who has been indoctrinated to value impossible ideals that if put into place would collapse society, the other is propaganda poster

>> No.717912

Keynes

>> No.717913

>>716589

>implying the labour theory of value has any fucking semblance to relevance or merit

>> No.717917

>>717166

>implying the validity of economic theory is based on vague political soothsaying

>> No.717986

>>717843
>Buttcoin doesn't satisfy the definition of money that Mises used.
Of course it does. It's a tradable commodity, it has value, it can be used as a basis for another money.

>> No.717996

>>716587

>using guns to defend yourself and your ideas is the same as using guns to force your ideas onto other people

>> No.718028

>>716587
What is the "irony" in the picture supposed to be? Surely the creator couldn't have thought that libertarians propose anarchy, or am I mistaken? The difference between libertarianism and maoism is night and day, even when accounting for both ideologies voicing varying levels of support for the state.

>> No.718031

>>717887
>freedom will make society collapse
It's not even anarchy, you'd still have those beloved police and militaries existing as superfluous entities receiving funding from the gullible and easily fooled.

>> No.718034

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Watch this vid to understand keynes vs hayek.
Keep in mind they were friends. Keynes even agreed that with hayek on a lot of things. Keynes though didn't like that hayek had no idea what to do, just that Keynes was wrong.

>> No.718044

>>718034
>Watch this vid to understand keynes vs hayek.
lyl

>> No.718063
File: 406 KB, 968x1330, 1428076981991.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
718063

>>716593
>lolbergtardians actually believe this shit

>> No.718119

>>718063

ayn rand was ugly as fuck i'd never read her books.

>> No.718152

>>716587
Schumpeter.

>> No.718170

>>718063
>Orwell the socialist
>Libertarian
Dafuq?

>> No.718173

>>717986
Mises never said that. You are cherry picking his arguments. He said that any "currency" like that will not be "money" for the long run.

Money needs to have 4 functions:
1)Standard of deferred payment
2)Medium of exchange
3)Unit of account
4)Store of value

Bitcoin especially fails the 4th one and struggles with others. But the 4th one is the one I would be talking about because it's easier to explain. Bitcoin is highly volatile, especially in the long run. Anyone who sold goods in exchange with bitcoin when btc was around 1000$ or anyone who decided to save btc during that exchange rate lost. Mises' main argument was that by abolishing Gold as basis to "currency" one would open way to it's demonetization, ie it would not be able to function as money anymore.

Before laughing at him remember that people laught at him when he said socialism would collapse. It should be noted that USSR dissolved because of the exact reasons he said in his publishings.

>> No.718187

>>718170

Most people have only read one of his books, in a mandatory high school class that only scratched the surface. "The people in this book call each other comrade and are bad. Communists call each other comrade so the book is saying communists are bad!!!!".

>> No.718490
File: 106 KB, 960x403, you're all a bunch of socialists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
718490

>> No.718638
File: 23 KB, 362x447, 2 (two) phones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
718638

>>718063
>YFW both descriptions work for either author

>> No.718657

>>718119
>average labour voter

>> No.718793

>>716587
Mao Zedong