|
FAO: People who actually study economics (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Really? Given the popularity of the Austrian school, I always assumed it had some impact on economical theory. |
What popularity? Among laymen? Among certain right-wing politicians and pundits? My impression is that Austrian school ideas are to academic economists what Ayn Rand is to academic philosophers. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but close. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
What popularity? Among laymen? Among certain right-wing politicians and pundits? My impression is that Austrian school ideas are to academic economists what Ayn Rand is to academic philosophers. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but close. |
I suspected this was the case for some time. But the reason that prompted me to post this thread was a friend, a foreign affairs major, that sent me an article by Hayek. I'm not sure he counts as a layman or a pundit, because economics is part of his field of expertise somehow.
And, after a quick read, you can see there are quite a few economists writing for the Von Mises Institute. Sure, it says absolutely nothing about how orthodox or competent these economists are, but you'd imagine that a school that failed to impact the tenets of economics would be something like homoeopathy for medicine by now. |
|
|
| Lews |
Eh, I can't remember all the details off the top of my head, but yeah, the Austrian school is somewhat in the same category of Ayn Rand - ing stupid.
Also, we practice neo-Keynsian economics, in theory at least. What we actually practice is kind of up for debate. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And, after a quick read, you can see there are quite a few economists writing for the Von Mises Institute. Sure, it says absolutely nothing about how orthodox or competent these economists are, but you'd imagine that a school that failed to impact the tenets of economics would be something like homoeopathy for medicine by now. |
And there are philosophers who take Ayn Rand seriously, too. The University of Texas has a notable Objectivist contingent, for example. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Eh, I can't remember all the details off the top of my head, but yeah, the Austrian school is somewhat in the same category of Ayn Rand - ing stupid. |
Now this is the odd thing: If Hayek were a linguist, his ideas would've helped us quite a lot, PR wise. Language works best when it's not regulated, because no single person can know the needs and used of language by every single speaker - yet linguistic cryogenics is still popular in schools throughout the world.
Although even in a field like mine Ayn Rand is useless beyond salvation.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Also, we practice neo-Keynsian economics, in theory at least. What we actually practice is kind of up for debate. |
:p
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
And there are philosophers who take Ayn Rand seriously, too. The University of Texas has a notable Objectivist contingent, for example. |
Oh, Texas :p
All right, I guess all my doubts have been put to rest thanks to this nutty state.
(If any Texans are reading this, I lived there for a while, so it's an acceptable target :D) |
|
|
| Trancelover03591 |
I have noticed a general trend among Anthropology proffesors (anthropology deals with economics a lot) to lean towards Marx or Keynes and to dismiss Adam Smith, Ricardo, Hayek, the Austrian school, Mises, Milton Friedman ect.
I am libertarian and can't see how people defend policies which have caused dozens of countries to either collapse or go to the brink. This is a two edged sword, yes it includes a welfare handout mentality but equally important is corporate welfare and bailouts for wall-street. Also, having trillions of dollars in debt simply can't be justified (and pointless wars play a huge part in the debt problem). That is just my take and opinion. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject more of a common sense observer. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
I have noticed a general trend among Anthropology proffesors (anthropology deals with economics a lot) to lean towards Marx or Keynes and to dismiss Adam Smith, Ricardo, Hayek, the Austrian school, Mises, Milton Friedman ect.
I am libertarian and can't see how people defend policies which have caused dozens of countries to either collapse or go to the brink. |
Which countries are those exactly? (not talking about marx, but Keynes here).
the Austrian school’s main converts are internet warriors without economics degrees so that could explain why professors don’t consider them too important. |
|
|
| Trancelover03591 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Which countries are those exactly? (not talking about marx, but Keynes here).
the Austrian school’s main converts are internet warriors without economics degrees so that could explain why professors don’t consider them too important. |
I don't really want to get started in a debate as I stated, economics isn't my strength. However, I would point out that most Marxists would probably take your statement as a disservice as I don't think any country has ever implemented Marxism in full.
Humans are meant to be hunters and gatherers. Agriculture and the subsequent industrial revolution doomed us in every way; economically, environmentally, freedom wise, population wise, health wise (the average hunter gatherer was healthier than the average agriculturist). We opened Pandora's box 10,000 years ago and there isn't a happy ending. We traded everything for some carbohydrates. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
I don't really want to get started in a debate as I stated, economics isn't my strength. However, I would point out that most Marxists would probably take your statement as a disservice as I don't think any country has ever implemented Marxism in full.
Humans are meant to be hunters and gatherers. Agriculture and the subsequent industrial revolution doomed us in every way; economically, environmentally, freedom wise, population wise, health wise (the average hunter gatherer was healthier than the average agriculturist). We opened Pandora's box 10,000 years ago and there isn't a happy ending. We traded everything for some carbohydrates. |
Marxists can suck my wang for all I care. However you didn’t answer my question. |
|
|
| Trancelover03591 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Marxists can suck my wang for all I care. However you didn’t answer my question. |
I am giving you an honest and humble answer. I can't answer your question in a sufficient way. I'm well read but not on the issue of economics (though I know more than the average person). I don't want to fight about it though because people have to start cooperating and listening to the other side to solve the worlds problems. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
Agriculture and the subsequent industrial revolution doomed us in every way; economically, environmentally, freedom wise, population wise, health wise (the average hunter gatherer was healthier than the average agriculturist). We opened Pandora's box 10,000 years ago and there isn't a happy ending. We traded everything for some carbohydrates. |
Bollocks
The average lifespan for a human 10,000 years ago was 20-25, now its closer to 70, damn you agriculture for increasing our lifespan by a factor of three times.
That same economics that actually drives medical and nutritional research, of course anyone that wants to die young by eating crap is free to do so and remove their fat arse from the gene pool. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
I don't want to fight about it though because people have to start cooperating and listening to the other side to solve the worlds problems. |
That's what I'm trying to do here. If you really believe this, then I'm up for it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
Humans are meant to be hunters and gatherers. Agriculture and the subsequent industrial revolution doomed us in every way. |
I'm afraid you're mistaken.
You see, agriculture appeared quite late in the history of mankind, but it's no accident it independently happened in quite different locations: Not every environment on Earth is susceptible for hunting and gathering. The domestication of animals and plants gave us the upper hand we needed to enhance our lives, reason why I can't think of a single agricultural revolution that was "reverted" by the population.
As for the industrial revolution, I find it hard to sincerely argue against it on the internet. Unless, of course, you've had a friend post this for you, and you don't drive cars, own coffee machines, and so on.
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
economically, environmentally, freedom wise, population wise, health wise (the average hunter gatherer was healthier than the average agriculturist). We opened Pandora's box 10,000 years ago and there isn't a happy ending. We traded everything for some carbohydrates. |
Agricultural/Industrial life led to a huge class of idle people who then became entrepreneurs, artists, and academics. How can you be more free in a hunter-gatherer society without the goods contemporary life has given us? |
|
|
|
|
