Why are retarded lolberts and ancaps always going on about Austrian economics and Austrian economists?

Why are retarded lolberts and ancaps always going on about Austrian economics and Austrian economists?

Other urls found in this thread:

spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001276.txt

because they don't understand capitalism

because Austrianism explains why radical disparity is natural and "good"


spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001276.txt

Because they say 'freedom' and 'free society' a lot.

economics is a pseudo science

take your anti intellectualism back to pol

It is mate. It is based on studying a system made up by humans. It tries to study the abstract. Its not the study of the laws of nature, so its not a hard science. It doesn't study something that is static. Things such as math and physics are static, and by expention chemistry and to some extend biology.

The term "science" has been refined and narrowed down a lot in the past 200 years.

corruption lover

Most of ecnomics is just a codified political agenda masquerading as a science which the ruling class uses to justify the status quo.

Because contemporary 'libertarianism' and Austrian economics both came out of rich people and utopian pseudo-intellectuals exasperated by Keynesian policy-making in the mid-20th century. Ancapism is just a product of even pseudier pseudo-intellectuals reading wikipedia articles on Hayek et al. and deciding that their antipathy towards fiscal policy makes them anarchists (?!). The bullshit intellectual justification of libertarianism/ancapism is its cause and its social base, whereas the 'real' movement behind it – namely, CEOs etc. fucking people over – tends to adopt every position under the sun depending on what's immediately convenient. Libertarianism without Austrian economics would just be fucking poor people over without any ideological justification.

You can measure empirically the effect of different economic systems on the population though. That is still economics and still science.

But economists don't do that. That's economic/social history (the distinction between the two is bullshit)

Have you read any Austrain stuff? It's pretty much "don't do stuff gubbermint, muh property and muh markets are great" while rejecting empirical evidence and pretty much using feels as a justification. As economic schools aimed at analysing capitalism go, it's easily the stupidest.

the magical guesswork that is ~praxeology~

It's as scientifically valid as race realism blogs so it must be true.

Tbh when the fucking IMF is denouncing neoliberal economics then you know that it's bullshit. The fucking global champions of capitalist hegemony and world's #1 Yugoslavia ruiners are saying that too much free market is bad. Let that fucking sink in /liberty/.

not an argument

he's not wrong. economics is a social study more than a science, but with even less falsifiability and less predictive power. All the axioms of orthodox economics are unrealistic. In all their equations: Firms (centrally planned economies) don't exist. Time doesn't exist. finite space doesn't exist. distance doesn't exist.
Meteorologists can predict storms, but economists didn't predict 2008. Except marxists (sometimes) can.

Sorry for everything, lads.

In response ti the pic ancaps would say "it's voluntary", but i have a question, if a country has a dictatorial goverment, but allows you to move if you want (paying lots of money of course) is it voluntary?

By their own definition it would be. You could resurrect the USSR as the USSR Inc and it would suddenly be okay, since following all the orders of comerade Stalin under penalty of gulag is a condition of occupying his private property. Unfortunately there is a 100km buffer zone around every border and coastline of USSR Inc that CEO Comrade Stalin declares is off limits. After all it's his property.

Lolberts literally care more about semantics then they do the actual situation and whether or not people are actually free. They would prefer people to be technically free than actually free.

yeah that's just the countries' private property. Imagine if Disney (which owns huge amounts of land, enough to be it's own small country) became an equal ownership cooperative. It would basically be a socialist country but ancaps would have no problem with it.