|
 a guy drew this on a napkin one day in 1974 and so the Republicans can bullshit that cutting taxes will increase revenue in between rounds of whipping their base up into a terrified rage over the browns, blacks, Muslims, poors, gays, liberals, etc, etc
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:While this may be more appropriate in D&D, asking here seemed like a better bet for a straight answer. I'm an engineering student so economics is not exactly the forte of most of us and tends to draw people towards ideas that can be "mathematically proven" as apparently Austrian school economics is when compared to Keynesian school and takes into account supply and production where the other only takes into account demand (dunno if these assertions are true or not out if they're valid). Can I get a full explanation on it and why it is or isn't valid when compared to Keynesian? Also can someone explain the same for Keynesian as it seems to be more favored on these boards. So first off, "Keynesianism" in terms of academic theory isn't a thing, other than the fact that Keynes was basically the founder of what is now Macroeconomics. Keynes' theory is a standard, integral part of the academic social science of economics. Austrian "economics" is basically bullshit charlatanism that literally rejects scientific empiricism (because scientific empiricism indicates that government intervention is needed to maximize GDP). So as for the bolded loving  . See here. The thing about demand is complete bullshit. The guy you're talking to should take an Econ 101 course, and stop reading literature distributed by libertarian lobbying groupsA better explanation for why autistic engineering types like libertarianism is because their education in the humanities is usually awful and they're more susceptible to intellectual snake oil because of it, combined with the fact that they tend to be whiter, maler and wealthier and thus stand to benefit materially from it icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:How is using logic and arguing from first principles really different from having a broad, poorly specified model? Because the first principles aren't true? If the first principles indicate some thing should be true that observably isn't, then your axioms do not mesh with reality. That's how empiricism works dude Austrianism is sneaky though because even though it pretends to be, it's not actually talking about the same thing that normal neoclassical econ is. Normal econ concerns itself with GDP, and seeks to find models that describe and predict what economic conditions maximize GDP. Austrianism, however, is essentially an ethical system under which abrogating property rights is basically the highest crime. They don't actually care about GDP or efficiency, it's a bunch of fancy words to say "got mine, gently caress you, keep away from my stuff" The neoclassical argument for or against a policy is 'will it maximize GDP?' The Austrian argument is 'does it mesh with our first principles?' And their first principles are 'absolute property rights, always and forever' icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 09:22
|
|