-
it is predicated on subsidizing the unproductive at the expense of the productive, contributing to the impoverishment of both
-
when it discourages capital formation
-
when it ignores the preferences of individuals
-
when it punishes peaceful, voluntary trade
I’m having trouble understanding what you mean here. How does economics “discourage” anything, economic science is value free, it doesn’t advocate or encourage anything. At best, you could say that mainstream economists believe capital consumption leads to prosperity, or capital accumulation leads to poverty. But nobody says that, the best criticism you can level against the mainstream wrt capital theory is that they ignore it, and that would be true.
You mean like David Friedman (presumably his son too) and Bryan Caplan? Both neoclassical anarcho capitalists.
Well, once again, this is misleading. You could argue that it abstracts from individual preferences with the use of mathematical models that aren’t appropriate for depicting action, you could also argue that it treats them as givens, but to say it ignores them is false.
This topic is full of a lot of incorrect assumptions about mainstream economics, it’s a shame that these criticisms are being advanced. Especially since Austrians should know better than to make such assertions when they’re complaning that the mainstream treats them in such a way. Also, I’m firmly of the belief that all Austrian layman should pick up a mainstream textbook and get a deeper understanding of other schools of thought. To call neoclassical economics “stupid” is silly, Mankiw, Krugman (yes, I said it), Friedman, Lucas, Caplan etc. stupid is ridiculous, these are some great minds. The best criticism you can advance is that they’ve been distracted with math and incorrect methodology, not that they’re stupid.
I admit this has me beat, I’m being told that David Friedman punishes, or is pro the punishment of, consenting capitalist acts ?
What is your opinion of Walras? Compared to most, I think he was pretty good. Although I think calling Krugman a “great mind” is pretty bold, haha.
I don’t think it’d bold, he’s clearly a smart guy. I haven’t actually read any of his work, but to judge his economics purely on the political pieces.
err, he got a /nobel for thinking up a new way to sell the infant industries fallacy and protectionism.
hurray for being smart.
Did you read the second part of the phrase? Austrian economics does not neglect the individual, and if it did, that would contradict with the basic premise that humans act, since human action requires study of individuals.
What I tried to imply was the use of central planning, having a central authority receive and distribute resources. Sorry if you misunderstand.
Irrelevant, since we are talking about discrepancies in economic theory.
Irrelevant.
NO HE IS SMART! AND VALUE FREE! YOU ARE MEAN!
bravo sir!
It’s ok though. You can still be my friend.
I’m having trouble understanding what you mean here.
This is a light hearted thread poking fun at goofy economic ideas.
Don’t take yourself so seriously, or you will end up like Krugman. A wild eyed boob with crankish ideas.
Time for some moar:
Economics is stupid when it establishes that interest rates are always dependent on the supply and demand for money. DUDE! You don’t need money for interest!
Economics is stupid when it paints deflation as the boogeyman, while ignoring the confiscatory deflation that actually harms.
Economics is stupid when it tries to paint a correlation/causitation between two statistics that have no relation to reality.
Economics is stupid when government creates da economic textbook. Then, it becomes mindless propaganda to promote government values.
Economics is stupid when it overstates the benefits of economic policy on a select group of people, and ignores everyone else.
Economics is stupid when it is based off of lousy assertions.
“Great minds” who believe something stupid are stupid and boneheaded for believing them. Period.
-
When people claim to believe in the laws of supply and demand, but say it doesn’t apply to money, health care, education, roads, etc.
-
When people think that with well over $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities and $11 trillion national debt will ever be paid for without printing it
-
When people worry about the big scary deflation monster as trillions of dollars are created from thin air
-
When people think that natural disasters and building pyramids is good for the economy
-
When people think capitalism exists in the United States
So only people who agree with you are smart?
I see what you did there.
And you can do that, just, make sure you’re not launching irrelevant, misguided criticisms.
No, not really.
What do you even mean? It ignores the individuals, it’s somewhat difficult to analyse society’s distribution of resources whilst focusing on individuals. All Austrian economics says about the distribution is that it is in accordance with the preferences of consumers, now that doesn’t really focus on the individual IMO.
Did you read what I wrote? I doubt it. Had you, you wouldn’t have concocted such a strawman.
I have one, you know an economic theory is stupid when perfect competition is defined as the complete lack of competition.