Economics

Any books about Nazis economics ?

Gravity's Rainbow

Attached: sss.png (968x520, 114K)

1. lessons for the young economist by murphy
2. the austrian school by de soto
3. keynes vs hayek rap battle on youtube (fear the boom and bust)
after that you will probably have enough knowledge to decide by yourself what you want to read. dont waste your time on adam smith, marx etc, especially in the beginning. they are not entry level, they are big, boring and outdated. its better to read good history of economic thought book instead

Who was the first economist? Was there anyone before Adam Smith?

me

He's the fundation of the Austrian School of economics. His theory of crisis is more rigurous than Keynes's and predicted the '29 crisis while Keynes was out laughing.
Hayek, Hoppe and Rothbrand are amongst his most famous successors; for good or ill.

Oh ok. Thanks.

Attached: Economic Policy_Mises.jpg (240x384, 17K)

how do you imagine reading smith, keynes, marx and mises without basic knowledge of modern econ theory and history? thats pretty advanced stuff which requires understading of the historican context + firewall in the head to fight against outdated concepts and ideological bullshit

Attached: 086ACAAD-3F40-49E0-BFA8-A9755E185738.jpg (1234x1426, 1.26M)

Mill is a disgrace as a political economist, apparently.

Don't mention it

one of the worst Yea Forums guides

Well ask can it actually explain real situations e.g. like the low rate of inflation in Japan right now? Most conventional theory is absoultly confused by the real state of the world right now. Look into MMT.

actuaries.asn.au/Library/FSF10_Paper_Frank Ashe.pdf
docs.google.com/document/d/1gvDcMU_ko1h5TeVjQL8UMJW9gmKY1x0zcqKIRTZQDAQ/mobilebasic

Well obviously yes since Smith went to France where he refined much of his thinking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiocracy
William Petty usually gets credited for being the first modern "economist" ignoring the older academic scholastic tradition.

This is wrong obviously, the "Austrian school" goes back further e.g. Bohm-Bawerk. Mises didn't "predict" the Great Depression and is more infamous for making actual absurdly wrong predictions like claiming hyperinflation would occur in Britain with the abandonment of the gold standard.

I said He's the fundation, that is the most famous member and the one who formalized the theory in a rigorous way. He absolutely predicted the crisis of '29 and there was hyperinflation in England upon abandoning the gold standard, but the economy recovered Because everybody linked their money to the dollari which untill Nixon was on the hold standard.
Keynesians always seeeeeeeethe incontrollably when You talk about him, as You can see OP.
It's because they know their idol was a brainlet.

>Look into MMT.
Oh dear.

Absolutely not. John Stuart Mill is definitely not a bad economist. I don’t understand where you heard that.

Economics took a materialistic, and rather mathematical level at the turn of the 20th century. Trust me, it gets intense. You literally have engineering mathematicians applying set theory and stuff to these basic principles.

But sometimes I fear something is lost from the time of moral philosophy. This is JS Mill’s Economics: Economics back when it was more along the lines of moral philosophy. His idea of ‘productive’ and ‘non-productive’ capital and expenditure is an unfathomably important idea and reinforces Geoism very well. :3

I like both though. I had to take a huge break from reading it recently because I’m reading Fibonacci’s Liber Abaci. I just read the pivotal ‘word problem’ which introduces the Fibonacci sequence last night. :D

When Butterfly posts, she is actually heavily into economics as well, mostly Marxist but she does like it also. Pretty fucking cool to hear a woman talk so extensively on the subject. Especially a qtpieee

I made that :3 ask me anything.
It is the most widely posted and broadly saved jpg in existence.

You see the other polished charts but mine has lasting power : because it works. It helps you along. It asks you questions to make sure you’re understanding. It points out the key parts.

Man, if you actually read and understand Leon Walras, you’re good. Like good good. He goes over EVERYTHING in that fucking book.

Explain "rigorous" in this context. Writing a gigantic tautological autistic tome doesn't make you "rigorous". Also you're not providing a source for his "predictions", there wasn't hyperinflation in the 1930s in Britain like Mises thought should break out immediately, I'll provide an actual citation:
>In September 1931, Ursula Hicks (wife of John Hicks) was attending Mises’ seminar in Vienna when England suddenly announced it was going off the gold exchange standard. Mises predicted the British pound would be worthless within a week, which never happened. Thereafter, Mises always expressed deep skepticism about the ability of economists to forecast
- "The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers"

Also if he's the "foundation" then why do more "serious" guys like Hayek reject his methodology and only fringe lunatics like Rothbard embrace it?

Yes, an actual theory that can explain what's going on today.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692
Everyone who is anyone agrees that Mises predicted the crash (like hayek did later and like their successors did in 2007).
>"rigorous" ahaha he made an error he must be wrong
Fuvking brainlet.
Keynes's theory litteraly starts by declaring that everyone except him is a retard that gets possessed by animal spirits (ie acts irrationally) and thus causes crises. Mises is more rigurous.
That is obvious.

Attached: IMG_7637.jpg (126x398, 16K)

The earlier you get with the Austrian school the better. The ideas of Bohm Bawerk and Carl Menger - ie marginality, was essential for the study of bilateral, duopolistic, or even monopsonistic exchanges as studied within Game Theory in the late 20th century.

Forget about late Austrian school, they don’t know anything. Austrian economists ie Joseph Schumpeter, Hayek, Oskar Morgenstern, etc have always been good. But not necessarily The Austrian ‘’’’school’’’’ of Economics.

I particularly despise Von Mises and Rothbard, who apparently cannot for the life of them GRASP how indifference curves WORK. I swear to fucking God, I took a second and found the article where they JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND INDIFFERENCE CURVES.

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

I’m :3, if anyone cares

>Austrian economist
>saving 2KB images of full charts

Pick two and always two.

Keynes and Mises are both fairly rigorous. What I find deplorable is that not only are their systems of economics not reconcilable with each other, they are just downright antagonistic. The key points are how they view the interest rates affect on the accumulated capital in society. One views as it goes up the other goes down, and the other views it the complete opposite. I mean it’s like this: what is even the point if you’re going to be that obviously antagonistic. I have more respect for Keynes than Mises, but I will admit Keynes was somewhat obfuscatory and did not even wield terms correctly either. Pic related is a page of my copy of The General Theory

:3

Attached: 85EE0F31-2AF9-418D-9054-00FBE8397403.jpg (4032x3024, 2.39M)

>INDIFFERENCE CURVES
Their difference seems to stem from a different understanding of what preferences are. Rothbard would say that there are no preferences that are not capable of being revealed in action. He would say that indifference between two separate goods is reconciled by they are in fact each instances of the same good for that individual—the effect of indifference is to dissolve distinctions between goods.

I’m sure that not even Rothbard is as simplistic as you are. I think he goes into more detail in regards to his economic ideas. However, that being said, he also disparages indifference curves, he criticizes then, and in their place, much like you, states something confirming their necessity.

The reason why we all love Pareto and Fisher, is because they mathematized indifference curves. And sure, rigorous proofs are necessary and fundamentally underlie their existence, but you don’t even need to understand the mathematics to appreciate their existence. You just need to understand basically everything you or he said, and look at some lines in an axis. But they don’t even want to do that.

What a joke :3

> mathematized indifference curves
Mathematized marginal UTILITY.

I’m sorry, I’m glad I re-read my post.

What did Nazi's think about currency?

Alright I will look into Pareto and Fisher but I am skeptical of what their starting points are going to be

This is a great example of what's wrong right here. Some commentary from the Wall Street Journal from 2009 isn't backing up your claim. It shows Austrianism is unfalsifiable in the worst sense. When QE started these guys claimed America would see Zimbabwe style hyperinflation and throughout the entirety of the 2010s every year they were claiming a big "correction" was coming and a major crash was going to happen. If it happened they were right but it gets memory holed if it doesn't. This didn't happen and know one wants to face up to the facts. This is the claim in your article of Mises "predicting" the crash:
>In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."
Since he thought one Austrian bank was going to fail this means he knew a general stock market crash was going to occur in America. He never saw that coming or he would of profited off of it.
Also you have no understanding of liquidity preference and no one deifies Keynes like with Mises. Most people have developed beyond Keynes and see him as a historical figure with insights.

The early guys laid the logic for progressive taxation which the later guys politically hated.

Highly based

Marginal utility. That’s it.

What was? Marginal utility? Marginal utility is expressed in one equation and is expressed as the declining linear utility in comparison with the product as it is bought and sold, for both the buyer and seller. This idea has been replicated many times. But to think that it laid the way for ‘taxation’... you like many others are thinking far too politically.

You hardly see me talking about politics. And I’m the one everyone wants to talk about the political side of things. I’m far too focused on the mathematics of the problem. :3

foundations of economic analysis paul samuelson

Both were, Schacht is better though.
Maybe Xenophon.

Don't listen to the pseuds OP, you should begin with Mankiw, his books "Principles of ..." or "Essentiels of ..." are easy. Or you could jump straight into (in order):
Macroeconomic by Mankiw
Intermediate Microeconomics by Varian
The Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets by Mishkin
If you liked that, you can continue with:
Modern Industrial Organization by Carlton
Game Theory by Fundenberg
Labor Economics by Pierre Cahuc
International Economics by Krugman
Public Finance and Public Policy by Gruber
Economic Theory in Retrospect by Blaug
And if you have the courage you should also study stats, probabilities and econometrics. And a bit of finance too.
Economics is much more complex than people realise, even top economists don't understand much (and can be influenced by ideologies). But if you study it properly, and with quantitative methods, it becomes a real science. So don't read Smith, don't read Hayek, don't read Marx (maybe read Keynes or Ricardo). Good luck to you user.

I should actually do a proper chart, I'm tired of seing pseuds on this board that know nothing about economics make recommendation as if reading Lavoisier was the best way to learn chemistry.

>Economics is much more complex than people realise
True
>even top economists don't understand much (and can be influenced by ideologies
Also true!
>But if you study it properly, and with quantitative methods, it becomes a real science
I think there is some truth to that but remember it is possible to be a scientist without using mathematics. For instance, I would assert that Alexis De Tocqueville is a political scientist and not a political philosopher because of his impartiality towards democracy and Aristocracy. I’d wager if he became an ideologue, Id say he was more of a political theorist or philosopher. But being impartial, he remains a scientist.

I would argue you’re right about Hayek being more of a philosopher, but I would still read his work. He conflates terms which others would separate, but he is right about the Nazi party having their origins in the Communist craze of Europe at the inception of the 20th century.

And Smith as well. Definitely Smith. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is where it all began, buddy. That is a very important work to read. Very very important.

I still have to get around to his Theory of Moral Sentiments, but the Wealth of Nations is very important.

>maybe read Keynes or Ricardo
Ricardo is also fundamental like Smith, but Keynes is an offshoot of extreme classical economics. He is an interesting read as well, simply because many Economic paradigms base heir decisions on his theories, but ultimately Ricardo is a much more fundamental economist. Ricardian rent is still true today, and the idea of rent can be extrapolated and allied to capital, as shown by the Lausanne school of economics.

Basically, mathematics is nice but you don’t need it for it to be a science. Pareto wrote his entire Manual of Political Economy DERIVED from equations, but was a mostly verbal experience. And the only time mathematics reared it’s head was to explain graphs or proportional ratios. The mathematical appendix is where mathematics is utilized. :3

These threads always suck, because you read so much into concepts without any idea of the math behind the theory, the math that disproves some of these theories, and how to apply economic principles. Reading these meme books will give you a Trump tier understanding of economics.

A standard textbook like Mankiw's Economics, followed by Debunking Economics by Keen would make for a solid foundation.

Attached: 0tejxjq8wnv21.1.jpg (2000x1352, 320K)

He did play a large role but, Feder played huge roles in the early stages of the German society in both economics and political layout.

...

B-but i mean look at the world! Its based on economics!

>But to think that it laid the way for ‘taxation’... you like many others are thinking far too politically.
If you understand marginal utility you should understand why a flat tax is problematic. Of course most of the modern Austrians are more concerned with different "moral" axioms. Hayek explains why he studied under Friedrich von Wieser:
>unlike most of the other members of the Austrian school ... had a good deal of sympathy with a mild Fabian socialism to which I was inclined as a young man. He in fact prided himself that his theory of marginal utility had provided the basis of progressive taxation, which then seemed to me one of the ideals of social justice.
books.google.ca/books?id=gM-_BwAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq="theory of marginal utility had provided the basis of progressive"&source=bl&ots=8r13QwepW0&sig=ACfU3U3MUm5FRmIkhVziZmZdrz6yaWU6RA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIqa2VsYDiAhULT98KHVTtAcoQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q="theory of marginal utility had provided the basis of progressive"&f=false

>You hardly see me talking about politics. And I’m the one everyone wants to talk about the political side of things. I’m far too focused on the mathematics of the problem.
If you want to play naive you can but you know theory has political consequences. If your equations turn out problematic there will be consequences. You know what's going on in the US senate today?

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-03/senate-republicans-mmt
>Five Senate Republicans want Congress to denounce Modern Monetary Theory, a doctrine gaining fans among progressive Democrats, as a menace to the U.S. economy.

Attached: mmt.gif (448x235, 60K)

Yeah see? Like that. I’m not picking sides here buddy

nazi's literally and publicly killed genuine socialists. them calling themselves the national socialists is a marketing ploy.