What are lolberts trying to argue when they say "take an economics class"?

What are lolberts trying to argue when they say "take an economics class"?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Well I mean the LTV is a bit out there, that being said I always laugh when Austrians who are probably the only fucking economic school which looks at economics as deductive tells anyone else they're economically illiterate.

It's not an argument.

Whats worse? The Austrian school or the Chicago school?

For instance when a socdem says raising the minimum wage will increase livelihood, a lolbert would respond that it isn't ture since raising wages increases prices and one would know that if you had taken a basic economics class.

It's their version of read a book.

Austrian. Chicago are functionally the same, but they seem to use empirical data at least.

idk, Austrian is beyond retarded but the Chicago boys fucked up an entire region in a few years

Speaking personally, I find it funny when capitalists tell communists to grow up. I had my lolbert phrase as a teenager, as an adult I'm a communist

Y'all faggots need Bookchin. Economic concerns are less of a concern than ecological ones in the 21st century.

So this is the intellectual of the week? Already got bored of spamming "read Bordiga"?

You faggots change your idols like Rebel changes ideologies.

I've never read Bordiga. Maybe you should Google Murray Bookchin, faggot

"There is no economics but Austrian, and von Mises is its prophet."

...

Anyone who takes economics 101 and no further economics classes would probably be a libertarian. In econ 101, you just get shown the supply & demand curves, and it is explained how the market sets prices at an equilibrium point, so any government intervention distorts this point & prevents peak efficiency. Thus, one gets the impression that all government intervention in the ecnomy is wrong and either minarchism or ancapism is ideal. Of course, when one takes econ 102 they learn about externalities, macroeconomics, sticky prices, and everything else that justify state intervention. Further reading into leftist economics, including surplus value, relations of production, class analysis, and information economics, tend to lead one to socialism. So when a libertarian tells you to take an economics class, it's usually an indication that they themselves never took any beyon econ 101.

It's the lolbert equivalent of "read Bordiga"

does he have a chin like a book?

they want you to become indoctrinated into the prevailing ideology needed to perpetuate our current system

Bookchin has always been a thing here, even before the Bordiga forcing

yes

...

Austrian by far. They somehow think the statement "man acts" is synthetic apriori even though it's derived from empirical data…. This has kept me from bothering to read Austrian econ.


Chicago are very different, Austrian school is the only econ school that views economics as a deductive science rather than an inductive one, which even a Friedman gobbling moron can agree is pants on head retarded.

Seconded; -this- is the correct answer.

Interestingly, I never would've learned this if I didn't take ECON with an awesome professor. Even though he was clearly a conservative, he walked us through both Macro and Micro in great detail and completely impartially.

He even taught us about The Great Moderation, which is a huge case for state involvement that Lolberts completely either gloss over or forget.

Essentially: State involvement in stabilizing the economy has a pronounced effect on the annual Real GDP growth of a country. While the Real GDP traditionally shoots up and plummets in tune with expansions and contractions, Government involvement allows the economy to settle into a period of steady prosperity; the highs aren't quite as high, but they're stable; and the lows are few, far between, and much shallower. Indeed, it's rather telling that the 2007/2008 Great Recession was actually caused by the -removal- of a lot of these stabilizers.

Read more here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation

not everything can be solved by hating white men, hwat a surprise.

Why do Austrians worship a man who was BTFO'd by Sraffa and Keynes?
Also:
Praxeology is literal mysticism.

The left has always been about challenging nature to overcome "natural" constraints.

Read my post.

Yes, but what I meant is that when if in control they would be functionally similar.

Reported for being a fucking faggot

Not really. Friedman's head would explode if one of his disciples tried to re-implement the gold standard.

Speaking of.

What stabilisers were removed, exactly?

The Fed has existed as normal, and you got trillions of dollars of stimulus.

I thought the stabilisers contributed to the crisis because they created a new housing bubble to replace the internet stocks bubble

Clearly 'stablisers' are not a good idea if they just delay the inevitable and make it worse

They want you to sit down and autistically believe every logically fallacious, idiotic thing that comes out of your econ teachers mouth. I can tell you if i had a nickle for every dumb thing an econ teacher has said in my presence I would have enough money to never post on this site nor care about paying bills ever again

He's probably referring to Glass Steagel. That's the only one I can think of.

But there are people who say it had literally nothing to do with the causes of recession

Those same people typically believe says law. There is no argument about whether the consolidation of the banks would've happen under Glass Steagell. The "too big to fail" meme is directly a result of Glass Steagell.

That their ideas are self evident enough that you should know them already, but since you don't, take an economics class where a typical neoliberal professor will only agree with about half of what they say at best.

can confirm. neolib professors say corporate tax cuts are a terrible way to stimulate economy but hate the idea of raised minimum wage for porky reasons. Would be hilarious to see how they reacted to an-craps

What the fuck is that?

I don't think anybody argues for corporate tax cuts for purposes of 'simulating the economy'

They do, on the basis that money is neutral.

I wouldn't know, well other than lolberts that tell me that taxes on corporations drive them out of the country and lead to jobs leaving with them. Which would of course hurt economic growth. Again I wouldn't really know as I have never advocated for taxes nor cared how much corporations pay the state.

It's mostly to promote long term growth and investment
Professors would probably say you should spend on infrastructure and things like that to stimulate the economy

The most ironic thing about that argument is this is only a cost effective option because of how much implicit subsidizing of big business the government does through basic services alone and then the added costs of needing a large military to bully people into trade deals and halting protectionism around the globe.

Some lolberts at least would be against the "corporate contract" part but that is just the tip of the iceberg.