Hey Veeky Forums, tell me : who's your favorite economist ?

Ludwig von Mises
Any post other than mine is wrong

get a job, pinko!

>tfw Veeky Forums is infested by retards from both ends of the political spectrum

>If you think Marx destroyed white tradition and hierarchy through feminism, postcolonial theory, and black lives matter theory, then you're a retard

It's facts, honey

>praxeology

Well.. this IS Veeky Forums --my second choice is Walter Bagehot who, when he wasn't editing The Economist, busied himself cranking out rather interesting Carlyle-tier lit-crit. Begin, however, with Physics and Politics, one of William James' favorite books.

He influenced Keynes

>Black lives matter theory
Kek'd irl

He influenced Hayek. Keynes was opposing their view

Actually, he had a fine sense of humor. But how is it possible for him to have killed off rigid fantasies of a false nostalgia years before they even existed?

Hayek or Keynes.

I think 99% of modern economists should be shot, both for utilitarian and aesthetic benefits.

This. But also Rothbard for free banking

>all these posts
>mfw not one person has paid due respect to Papa Friedman

Sowell. He's concise, factual and funny.

>Reddit: The Economist
Shiggy

...

economies are for fags

Strasser wiped the floor with him in every dispute.

Gotta be a tie between Keynes and Schelling

also

>Marx
>worthy of being called an economist

he was a religious prophet

economics is to the social sciences what biology is to the physical sciences, ie It's for stupid niggers

funny you should say that when economists are the only social scientists who actually use math

its much more rigorous and requires more intelligence than le critical marxist interpretation of the semiotics of dildo making in third world countries, thats for sure

>Robert Reich
>Thomas Sowell
What's your major, stupid

Math isn't for social scientists, it's above their pay grade. Hence they end up using it in retarded ways, like failing to take into account externalities. Leave the STEM to the STEM minded.

chem eng undergrad, aiming for a phd in atmospheric sciences

>the worst engineering major
>atmospheric sciences
You neoliberal bourgeois, you think yourself a perpetual victim because your mom properly disciplined you for being a bed-wetting zero. You have nothing.

>Hence they end up using it in retarded ways, like failing to take into account externalities

Ok, right there you just show that you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Economists have written entire books about modeling and correcting for market externalities. It sounds like you took one or two introductory econ courses and then decided you've learned the entire field. Go look up Arthur Pigou.

>worst engineering major
well yeah, that's why I'm trying to get away from it

>economics is to the social sciences what biology is to the physical sciences, i.e. I have studied neither of those four and I'm a retard on Veeky Forums

Das Kapital is considered a classic of economics. Horribly outdated, but still a classic.

Please show me an economist who takes into account the qualitative value of economic output in a real way. Because that's really the problem with free market economics at it's core. It is an efficient way of balancing supply and demand, but demand is not the same as need. Consider economy A with a GDP per capita of $50K, but the majority of that is composed of socially harmful consumer goods like pornography, smart phone apps, television programs, etc. that should really have a negative value including externalities. Economy B on the other hand has a GDP per capita of $10K mostly composed of housing, health care, etc. Most metrics I've seen don't take the qualitative value of those goods into account through externalities, even things that supposedly do like HDI. This all stems from the fact that wants are different from needs and that capitalism (and most materialist ideologies including Marxism) ultimately aims to satisfy wants.

You won't find one because it is not an economist's job to decide what is "qualitatively good", whatever the fuck that means. Its an ethicist's or a philosopher's job.Thats for people who give a fuck about feelings or muh duhgeneracy. A good is a good because people want it. That dosen't change just cause you don't like it.

Growth or GDP per capita are not the only metrics that economists study, either. Health economics, labor economics, welfare economics, these are all subsets of the field that have old, well established literatures.

Also, please learn what an externality actually is before you keep using that word

Don't bother. I think I've discussed with that poster before and he can't even understand basic positive/normative distinction.

It's because laissez faire is pagan hogwash. supply and demand was stolen from Newton's gravity and inertia which was stolen from the ancient greek idea of love and strife

Calling economics a real science is a farce, it's an extremely ideological discipline and requires adhering to a specific conception of economic values to not get demonised and excluded. Scientists are supposed to at least try avoiding value-judgments, but that's the entirety of economics.

Economics relies on values in the sense that it makes statements about what most people value and how they will act based on what they value. It doesn't say what humans should value. Determining what people actually value and how they behave based off those values can be done within a scientific framework (psychology/anthropology) and implemented into economic theories.

HOW isn’t that not asking for a safe space?

ayn rand

Then explain why economic planning tools developed by soviet economists are STILL being taught to American economics undergraduates today

>unfalsifiable shit unlike real economists

Gee user you're so smart.