Some Austrian economists are much better than others. It's easy to see who are politically motivated and who are not.
Good ones:
Karl Menger
Friedrich von Hayek
Bad ones:
Ludwig von Mises
Murray Rothbard
Milton Friedman
I actually can't believe how stupid Yea Forums is when it comes to economics.
Just like how everyone reads Plato and not Aristotle. Just sheer proof that just because people are reading a book doesn't mean they have the capacity to think hard about things. :3
As the OP I believe I should explain.
Economics actually has more in common with electrical engineering than it does political philosophy.
Economists from various schools across the years have understood this.
See:
Lausanne school
Game theorists
Spectral analysts.
I'm actually going over the third right now. There are certain spectral concepts like stationarity isolation techniques where they try to isolate certain frequencies to achieve stationarity with a trend to analyze that 'time period' oscillation as unhindered as possible from the surrounding time period oscillation much like how an electrical engineer's black box isolates certain frequencies. :3
But of course all the people on Yea Forums who are not involved with mathematics wouldn't want to tell you that.
I mean, I don't see how you can possibly not appreciate mathematics and be into non-fiction literature. I'm reading five different books, and four out of five of them all have some incidental application, or resonance with the field of mathematics.
Could just be personal preference, but the fields of these books are all over. :3
So how about Schumpeter, good or meme?
So Schumpeter is actually completely unrelated to the Austrian school, kind of. I mean he has some influence from the school, as he was contemporaries with Hayek and Mises, but like Morgenstern, really has nothing in common with them other than that.
He was very involved with the Marxian argument and empathized with it more than any other Austrian. I could broadly call his philosophy 'Austrian socialism' but he does distinguish himself from socialists within Austria. The reason I call it that though is because his theoretical utopian socialism would still involve differences in wages based on position and company. :3
To be honest from what I've remember from CS&D he seemed to be weirdly ironic about his ideas of making socialism work or even the way it would become a thing.
Schumpeter was absolutely based for an economist, redpilled on both capitalism and socialism, recognised the role of aristocracy. Other austrians can go to trash, Lausanne School was better.
>economics
mumbo jumbo
That may be an educated opinion, depending on how you think about Karl Menger. Basically Leon Walras said everything Karl Menger did, but applied it into a mathematical system based on marginality.
His Principles of Pure Economics is one of my favorite books of all time. It is a wonderfully complex read.
He FULLY, and I mean FULLY believed in socialism. He was a socialist. But he was also extremely intelligent and did his homework.
He hated Marxist Communism and everything it stood for. He empathized with some of the originating principles, but understood the flaws for Marxism for what they were. :3
Go read your Nietzsche, kiddo.
>I only talk about economics if it relates to my 200 year old philosophy
This is you, brainlet.
Game theory is a meme. You write these over-complicated papers with super-unrealistic assumptions just to say something trivial and to not look like a moron at the same time, not to bring something meaningful to discussion. This thing destroyed economics.
economics is astrology for tupper crust soft cocks
Friedman wasn't an Austrian, but him and Hayek are by far the most important economists that you mentioned.
Menger and Mises still had valuable contributions to economics, and Rothbard is quite retarded.
You're right, you're right. Milton Friedman was a Chicago School economist, but he was just as terrible as Mises in the same ways.
>over-complicated
Game Theory is far less complicated than Spectral Analysis. :3
>he was just as terrible as Mises in the same ways
How so user? This seems like a hot opinion.
Because he was vehemently biased against the left for no reason.
Keep in mind, economists like Schumpeter actually empathized with Marx quite a lot. I don't understand the point of fighting for a political party when you seem to understand all they fight for is completely control via money and politics. And certain social scientists like Schumpeter or Hayek realize this, while others like Mises or Friedman, do not. They are vehement opponents to the 'left' completely.
Much like how Keynesian economics was developed in opposition to Mises'. I don't like that system of economics completely either. :3
By over-complexety I mean complexity for the sake of complexity, not because it's really necessary. Can't say much about spectral analysis though, time series don't give me a hard on.
If you get a hard-on for anything you read, I think you've got a lot of growing up to do and you should actually try to read something worthwhile for someone to read. :3
Also, Game Theory is simple where it can be, any mathematical treatise tries to simplify things whenever possible, hence why they had to define a linear utility. Without the linear utility, any sort of subjective, marginal evaluation would involve Hessian matrices of second-order partial derivatives. :3
>all the bad ones are Jews
I mean Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, he certainly wasn't at all in favour of anything 'left wing'. Depends what you define as left wing though.
I'm more judging Friedman on the basis that he gave birth to a whole school of monetary economics which is influential today. I'd hardly say he's a Republican stooge anyway, he wasn't even member of the party and was very much heterodox in Republican thought at least until Reagan.
Yeah, drop this thing here, this thing there, and you are already so far from reality that there is no more meaning in your model. So why not to write your point in plain english instead of this game-theoretic mess? I used to make this mistake myself, before I realised how much time I wasted on doing literally nothing of value.
>Milton Friedman
he was part of the chicago school. unlike all the others you listed, friedman advocated for a central bank.
It's just mathematics, man. It's just another language. You need to learn to speak it in order to understand certain things. You don't need a degree in it in order to speak it. As a matter of fact, that's the one point of Friedman's I agree with: there should be less certifications within academia and professional life for things.
Hayek understood the necessity of monopolies, unlike Mises and to a certain extent Friedman. Hayek was much more rational than many of his later contemporaries. :3
Yes he did, and I believe incorrect for doing so, as there are many other ways of stabilizing the currency value as opposed to a federal reserve bank.
Also I hope everyone realizes Milton Friedman was also a mathematical economist. Some of his best works are referenced by Spectral Analysts in recognizing various trends. :3
Friedman wasn't an austrian economist. You're fucking retarded.
All the economists there are good, some are just more autistic than others.
general discussions of economics are not on-topic
That is completely false, and I am trying to discuss different works ITT as you can see.
Friedman was a colleague of Hayek and also his favorite student. I would suggest you do your homework.
Calling someone 'retarded' for conflating the Austrian and Chicago schools is a little ridiculous, considering they were the same thing. :3
Back to /pol/ please.
>Conflating the Austrians with the Chicago school
This isn't the thread for you, chief.
>That is completely false
no
Yes.
They are extremely similar. How can you not see that? This is my thread. I made it.
Conflating the Lausanne and Chicago schools would be a big deal.
Conflating the Austrian and Marxist schools? Big deal
Conflating the Neoclassical and Keynesian schools? Big. Deal.
But conflating the Chicago and Austrian schools? Not a big deal. Not one at all. :3
Do not use avatars or attach signatures to your posts.
Don't tell me what to do, bitchass nigga :3