... it establishes that consumption is the cause of economic growth, and the issue of production is ignored.
... it tries to measure average price for a basket of goods, when the basket is arbitrary and can change at will.
... it looks at society's method of resource distribution, while neglecting the individual.
... it tries to model human action for everyone, without the use of godly magic.
... it says that costs determine prices.
Add on!
Schools are labour camps.
It holds that labor alone determines value.
It holds that government flunkies are better at running your life than you are.
it espouses the iron law of wages
inflation is assumed to decrease unemployment
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
eliotn:it looks at society's method of resource distribution, while neglecting the individual.
I don't see the problem with this, moreover Austrian economics also does.
eliotn:it tries to model human action for everyone, without the use of godly magic.
Well, mainstream economics doesn't model human action, that's part of the Austrian criticism.
eliotn:it says that costs determine prices.
From the perspective of the individual firm that's somewhat true.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Knight_of_BAAWA:It holds that labor alone determines value.
Almost nobody believes that anymore...
GilesStratton:Almost nobody believes that anymore...
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:It holds that labor alone determines value. GilesStratton:Almost nobody believes that anymore...I don't see how that's relevant.
It's not really, I just found it an odd choice.
Anyway to answer the OP, what I find particularly silly is the notion of a giffen good, amongst others, of course.
fezwhatley:inflation is assumed to decrease unemployment
In the short run it does, and it the long run most mainstream economists accept that it doesn't.
eliotn: it establishes that consumption is the cause of economic growth, and the issue of production is ignored.
Not really, in the long run it's often granted that consumption does not matter.
GilesStratton:It's not really, I just found it an odd choice.
I don't see that it's odd at all for a choice. After all: some people still believe it--explicitly and implicitly, e.g. anyone who talks about capitalism being exploitative of the workers for not giving them the full value of the product, wage slavery, etc.
Knight_of_BAAWA: anyone who talks about capitalism being exploitative of the workers for not giving them the full value of the product, wage slavery, etc.
It depends on the definition of capitalism.
...when it assumes that to have more of something, you have to consume it.
The Rev
Lifes a piece of shit, when you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true
Just remember it's all a show, keep em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you
GilesStratton:It depends on the definition of capitalism.
... when it admits that too much consumption and too much borrowing caused the economic crisis and prescribes more consumption and more borrowing as the remedy.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Except Mr1001Lies and his legion of mindless drones.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
...when it says that people cannot afford education or health care, and therefore should be forced to pay for education or health care through the public sector
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: ...when it says that people cannot afford education or health care, and therefore should be forced to pay for education or health care through the public sector
Economics doesn't say anyone should do anything.
Jon Irenicus: Almost nobody believes that anymore... Except Mr1001Lies and his legion of mindless drones.
Right, but who cares about a few losers on youtube.
When it claims that all knowledge regarding economic reality can only be discovered through empirical observation, not realizing that the claim itself is inherently contradictory.
"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." -H.L. Mencken
When it's based on the writings of J.M. Keynes.
- 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
liberty student:- when it discourages capital formation
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.
liberty student:- when it punishes peaceful, voluntary trade
You mean like David Friedman (presumably his son too) and Bryan Caplan? Both neoclassical anarcho capitalists.
liberty student:- when it ignores the preferences of individuals
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.
GilesStratton: liberty student:- when it punishes peaceful, voluntary trade You mean like David Friedman (presumably his son too) and Bryan Caplan? Both neoclassical anarcho capitalists.
I admit this has me beat, I'm being told that David Friedman punishes, or is pro the punishment of, consenting capitalist acts ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton: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.
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.
Eric: 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.
GilesStratton: eliotn:it looks at society's method of resource distribution, while neglecting the individual. I don't see the problem with this, moreover Austrian economics also does.
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.
GilesStratton: eliotn:it tries to model human action for everyone, without the use of godly magic. Well, mainstream economics doesn't model human action, that's part of the Austrian criticism.
What I tried to imply was the use of central planning, having a central authority receive and distribute resources. Sorry if you misunderstand.
GilesStratton: eliotn:it says that costs determine prices. From the perspective of the individual firm that's somewhat true.
Irrelevant, since we are talking about discrepancies in economic theory.
GilesStratton: eliotn: it establishes that consumption is the cause of economic growth, and the issue of production is ignored. Not really, in the long run it's often granted that consumption does not matter.
Irrelevant.
nirgrahamUK: err, he got a /nobel for thinking up a new way to sell the infant industries fallacy and protectionism. hurray for being smart.
NO HE IS SMART! AND VALUE FREE! YOU ARE MEAN!
liberty student: AND VALUE FREE!
bravo sir!
GilesStratton:I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here.
It's ok though. You can still be my friend.
GilesStratton:Well, once again, this is misleading.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here.
GilesStratton:This topic is full of a lot of incorrect assumptions about mainstream economics
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.
liberty student:This is a light hearted thread poking fun at goofy economic 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.
- 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
Knight_of_BAAWA:"Great minds" who believe something stupid are stupid and boneheaded for believing them. Period.
So only people who agree with you are smart?
liberty student:I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here.
I see what you did there.
And you can do that, just, make sure you're not launching irrelevant, misguided criticisms.
eliotn:Irrelevant.
No, not really.
eliotn: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 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.
GilesStratton:So only people who agree with you are smart?
I have one, you know an economic theory is stupid when perfect competition is defined as the complete lack of competition.