Can someone recommend critiques of austrian and chicago school economics...

Can someone recommend critiques of austrian and chicago school economics? I heard they were the essential foundation for neoliberal reforms. I've already got some good pro-marxist stuff but I'm interested in critiquing the enemy.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc
marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/
marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=dBZxth7SMmM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Economics isn't science

Reality. Seriously though neolib economics has lead to wage stangination or straight out decrease, long hours, less benefits, for the average worker since it was implemented while the wealthy have become made out like bandits, and it's probably going to get a hell of a lot worse every year. I don't see how anyone can by the less taxes, """freer market""" less big gubernment meme unless they are already part of the top.

It's not really an in-depth critique and all it really does is shill capitalism with a human face, but it's some nice data. (pic 1)

Invariably you'll get "muh stagflation mufugga", at which point you bang out:
1. The system was built on Breton Woods, which then died a death because it used the USD - that was 1971, before stagflation. Had it used the Bancor, it could've endured - but it didn't so it didn't so fuck off.
2. You post pic 2 and laugh in their faces for being dumb enough to miss cost-pull inflation caused by a sudden spike in the price of oil, instead randomly attacking workers for doing the glaringly obvious.

(Kaleki's critique of the whole thing in class-terms is quite cognizant, indeed I would argue that in terms of Porky's re-assertion of power to replace full employment policies is essentially what we witnessed with neoliberal reform - but that's broadly irrelevant to critique from the chicago/austrian school.)

Austrian economics isn't mainstream.

Friedman and Hayek`s comments on all the other economists
youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc

Reality.

OK wtf are you talking about?

What is the second chart? What is stagnation? What is breton woods?

...

marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/

Second chart is world oil prices. Note the big spikes in 1973 and ~1979. (OPEC Embargo+US Passing peak oil, and Iranian revolution if I remember correctly.)
Stagflation is a combination of inflation and high unemployment/low growth (literally "stagnation+inflation"). Oversimplified Keynesianism "says" that stagflation should be impossible because of the Philips Curve, a supposed trade-off between inflation and unemployment. (Indeed, one of the things Milton Friedman is famous for is saying "nuh-uh.")

Now compare the oil-price chart to the inflation rate charts in pic-related and tell me if you can deduce a pattern during the 1970s.

The Austrian school simply is unattractive compared to the Keynesian school because it Keynesianism promotes spending during deflationary periods. Austrian dictates that recessions are a natural economic function and needs to be allowed to occur to keep the economic system healthy. Ultimately it's easier to criticize a country's lack of adherence to a fiscal policy because policymakers are the ones that fuck it all up.

And to the people that claim economics isn't a science, sure, it may be a soft science but it's more stem work then any Marxist has ever done :^)

we`ll run up that deficit like the Soviet Union during Gorbachev, fuck it up

It also preaches "praxology" which while being completely meaningless on it's own. It dosen't even refute socialism in anyway possible. People could take "conscious action" towards socialism just as easily as they would towards what ever the fuck the mises institute has put out recently.

You're saying the price of oil rose because of deflation?

praxology seems like just a framework/way of thinking, its purpose isnt even to be some serious theory, exists to explain away aberrations

The inverse: Inflation rose because of the price of oil suddenly going up in a highly oil-dependent set of economies.

common sense

and how does this relate to neoliberal economics?

Economics is science. The Austrian and Chicago school are however in no way scientific

Because neoliberalism displaced Postwar Keynesianism in large part due to high inflation.
(It made a great pretence for union busting policies, for example, as you could blame unreasonable union pay demands for the high inflation.)

So they blamed the high inflation on keynesianism and then the economy went to shit?

...

The Austrian school is what happens when you try to base economics off psudoscience rather than Statistical analysis or empiricism.

I mean jesus take a look at the Austrian Business Cycle. It relies on a single natural rate of interest, but there is no single natural fucking rate of interest.

pseudoscience*

Of sorts. It was already shit (I mean there's no way you can really paint the 1970s as a good period for capitalism.), but they briefly made it worse (well, increased human misery anyway - 12% unemployment at one point in the UK) before getting credit for inflation falling (largely due to oil prices starting to come down.)

Hilferding reply to Böhm-Bawerk

marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm

it's as much of a science as is sociology

"Economics" is largely bullshit, but social sciences are science. Just social.

wew lad

These two are right. "Economics" is bourgeois bullshit that will always be myopic and reductionist. Marx knew this, and this is why "Marxist/Marxian economics" is by no longer Marxist. See pic related.

...

no they aren't falsifiable, make no real predictions and are largely based in idealist conceptions of reality that don't relate with biology or physics or evolution. they're not scientific at all, they're outgrowths of the humanities and liberal arts

Read Varoufakis. The economy is akin to a planet where the weather is partially determined by the weather forecast. It has too large of an unpredictable human element to be a science in the same way mathematics or physics is. It's at best a social science in the realm of sociology or psychology.

...

This. Varoufakis is literally our guy. He saw economics, understood it and achieved a lot in it. But he also rejected it and understands that capitalism is broken and that models are just models. Him being a socdem is solely because he thinks revolution wont come soon enough and that we have to save Europe and the planet now. Which is an understandable position.

So Earth then?
(Only the weather isn't affected by the forecast, it's affected by me going outside without a coat. Sorry guys.)

No, he meant a world where the forecaster have the power to partially detrminate the weather by his word alone. Most obvious example: notation agencies.

Center for a stateless society has good neo-mutualist arguments against it which ancaps can be responsive to because of the emphasis on markets.

One phrase shatters all Austrian arguments and that's "elasticity of demand"

that doesn't refute anything. Patterns emerge when human beings conduct trade and economics is about identifying and understanding those patterns. Marx understood this incredibly well, I believe his diagnosis of the problem is on point however I disagree with his remedy.

It's about creating self fullfilled prophecies. Only not fully.

Most of the time it's microeconomics and it goes "yes, will free the markets and everyone will be better off" but then they forget about Marx and WW3 has to happen…

Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't be a capitalist in denial.

youtube.com/watch?v=dBZxth7SMmM