- Keynes stopped being popular in the 1970s.
- Stop criticizing mainstream economics, you don’t know anything about it. Most of you haven’t picked up so much as an intermediate micro book.
- The world isn’t going to end in 20 years, and if it does it won’t have anything to do with the state.
- The NWO doesn’t really exist, nor do lizardman. And politicans and academics aren’t out to get you either.
- Seriously, Keynes died in academia like 40 years ago now.
- Please stop talking about ancapland, it makes you look like utopians.
- Stop criticizing Marxists/ socialists/ liberals/ conservatives for being closed minded, people say the same about you.
- There are more important things in life than the purity of your own unique, personalized brand of libertarianism.
- The revolution won’t happen, and if it does, it won’t be all that much fun.
- Chances are if you’re saying something interesting, somebody else has said it before you. Only, they said it in a journal and supported it with empirical evidence and rigorous logic. Go look it up before you post, if it isn’t there, your idea is probably stupid.
Hmm, can I expect rain in Johannesburg soon? Also, which way is the wind blowing today? 
Cool story, bro.
Do you also go to golf-forums and tell them that golf is really stupid? (4,800 times no less)
This says more about you than about us.
Do you also go to golf-forums and tell them that golf is really stupid? (4,800 times no less)
I play golf, so obviously not. These forums are named after Mises, he would have agreed with most, if not all, of what I said.
He’s paranoid and he fears that some people here may actually multiply in numbers and further expose and undermine the pseudo-science that he adheres to.
He wants to be respected as an intellectual and as a scientist and not have a whole bunch of people, gaining in credibility, question his methods,knowledge, and most importantly, his authority.
It’s best to just ignore posts like this and let them disappear into the archives.
Hayekianxyz,
Your are very good at saying what is not the case. Could you though on occasions actually say what is the case?
Uh, Keynes was never “popular” as such at all. Even throughout the 1950s and 1960s, universities loathed to have Keynesians teaching their students. Keynesian Paul Samuelson was ostracised in MIT (although his students alleged anti-Semitism as well). Keynes was only popular among the very young of the time when he wrote General Theory. Otherwise, people here perhaps only criticise Keynesianism, because it is fashionable among NON-KEYNESIANS to use Keynesian language and apparatus.
Public policymakers have other incentives, which have little to do with what Keynes or any other academic ever said - the extent to which they listen to them is the extent to which they say what they want to hear.
Actually, a lot of people on Mises.Org are quite “mainstream”. See how many times you will find posters here saying, “Economics is a value-free science”, even though Austrian School is a normative field, based more on praxeology. Libertystudent and other themselves have said that they don’t necessarilly group themselves in with Rothbard or others - they merely admire his analysis on some things and leave the rest.
I think you are confusing this forum with conspiracy blogs, even though conspiracists here are an exception rather than the norm. I suspect you put words in people’s mouths.
Again, I have been here long enough to see that conspiracists here are an exception rather than the norm. Most people here, from Daniel to others, simply see those groups as arrogant enough to be stubborn in holding fallacies in shutting out all dissension, and thinking that top-down actions will solve problems.
Several people on this forum have rightly and repeatedly said that the Chicago School did far more damage.
I am not an “anarchist”. Neither is lamanascitus. And even among those here who would do without the state (like libertystudent), they have said, “Don’t preach to those who don’t listen. Stick to giving and sharing knowledge with those who wish to learn.” Nobody here is interested in convincing anybody - they prefer to simply educate themselves and understand the problems of this world. Is that a bad thing?
So so many many times have people in this forum admitted to be part of those groups once, and so so many many times have they explained that it’s not necessarilly those people’s problems, as it is the fact that many grow up listening to what others tell them.
And those other things are discussed frequently. Either way, if the problem is that people here take things too seriously, is it wrong to take serious problems seriously? I mean, right now fiscal deficits of our nations is making a life a tad bit harder for us, no?
I think many here have already accepted that, and many here aren’t into violence. At most, people here are more interested in saving, investing, and weathering themselves from the next crisis.
It’s just an internet forum.
Even if I were 100% ignorant of economics, it should be obvious to the cynical observer that they do zero institutional analysis in their economics. It is assumed that the government is wise and benevolent, glossing over a plethora of evidence to the contrary. I don’t know if you can do economics without considering incentive. Its closely bound up with praxeology…
Yeah the government is doing the best it can by its citizens. The NWO has been around for a long time via the IMF and USAID. There’s nothing “new” about it, but it is the kind of central control conspiracy theorists are worried about. But lizardmen are retarded, and so is Alex jones.
The issue is that they refuse to look at evidence. A Marxist’s unwillingness to compromise is slightly admirable.
Next time I make a thread exploring some idea, and someone else has already written about it in detail, please link me the source. I’m here to learn, not to try to prove that My Ideas are Awesome.
I’m sure all these free-thinking libertarians will shut up and do exactly what you dictate.
As for Ancap, here’s my position. Ancap, like perfection, may not be obtainable but that should not prevent anyone from trying to be the best they can be. Some will probably disagree with me on the unobtainable part of my statement, but the concept still applies.
“It’s just an internet forum.”
Actually, just this internet forum, and others like it, are beginning to have more and more of an impact, and it may already be having more of an impact today on economic thought then the Academic Journals and more traditional formal avenues.
This is why he despises this forum and its discussions.
The traditional Academia and the State have lost control over information and “knowledge”, which is why the Academia itself if going through a transformation.
He realizes that he can spend 1000 hours on a paper, submit it to a journal, have it published, and have fewer people read his work then a Mises.org article, or even a thread on this forum that dares to question his authority in such an informal manner.
Speaking as someone who is not an Austrian and is a degreed economist, no Keynes broadly speaking did not stop being popular in the 1970s and New Keynesian macro is still the standard from Mankiw to Froyen. I don’t know what you do for a living, but you’re wrong. And outside of econ departments, in political philosophy, international theory, public policy, etc. old Keynesian macro assumptions are still largely standard and in critical theory, sociology, anthropology, etc. Marxian economic assumptions are still largely standard. It would probably be good for libertarians to understand the evolution of “mainstream” economics since the 70s and thus competently argue against it, but that’s assuming there is such a thing as a “mainstream” economics. There’s not. “Mainstream” economists disagree on prettymuch everything other than free trade, and in my experience with professional economists, most do not thoroughly understand their own positions or methodological premises anyway.
Talking about non-state solutions to problems is not “utopian.” And people can fruitfully talk about ideas even if they’re not immediately or ever practicable (eg. modern economics, political philosophy, etc. etc.).
Economic journal articles cover very little on the subjects usually talked about here (I could probably tell you off-hand every economic article published arguing for the state or against non-statism), and even so as someone who has observed the peer review process and has written for said journals, if you think they’re typically supported with “empirical evidence AND rigorous logic,” you’re naive. And if you think that “most interesting things” have already been covered in that way in a journal, you’re delusional.
I’d recommend libertarians that (A) stop using ethical argumentation, (B) focus more on real-world consequentialist problems and their non-state solutions, and (C) cut down on the “us vs. them” sectarianism in economics and elsewhere. I’d recommend David Friedman, Bryan Caplan, Bruce Benson, Anthony de Jasay, Peter Leeson, and other economists who argue for non-statism in modern “mainstream” economics terms if they want to make more convincing arguments to the few people familiar with that stuff, but otherwise it’s silly to direct anyone not to think originally for themselves.
Who here talks about the “NWO”, anyway?
How do you propose to substantiate that assertion?
There is nothing to see here, move along. Move along. Don’t look behind that curtain or we will tase you!!!
Really, none of this is true:
The central banks of the EU and USA through the IMF are not in the process of creating the equivalent of $800 billion to give to sure up the economies of Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
The USA central bank and the Bank of England do not have the whole liability of JP Morgan and HSBC naked shorts of silver.
The USA central bank does not have more than 1 trillion dollars in excess reserves.
I don’t understand why Hayekianxyz still even posts on this forum. I’m going to lock this, because I really see no utility in trolling the forums. If any moderator believes otherwise that’s fine, just unlock it.