This is the most garbage thing I've ever read. Why are economists so clearly biased towards capitalism?

This is the most garbage thing I've ever read. Why are economists so clearly biased towards capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics
openstax.org/subjects/
chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-signs-youre-reading-bad-criticism-of-economics/
reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/blogs
youtube.com/user/MrUniversity/videos
reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/index
econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

follow the money.

because it's the only viable economic system currently at our disposal.

>inb4 muh central planning

lol

Capitalism doesn't exist

It's the "only viable economic system currently at our disposal" because the majority of people who practice economics scoff at any attempts to discuss new forms of economic organization. How could there be any other viable economics systems if we don't even bother thinking about them?

>why are materialists biased towards materialism?

Not to say commies are any better. The answer to our problems is spirituality

>Why is the study of the flow of goods and services biased towards the most efficient method of their distribution?
OP gay his mom retared

yeah cause the soviet experiment went over so well.

>Designing an entire economic system
Ah yes yes indeed. We should also design a perpetual motion engine while we're at it.

Oh well! Guess we should just give up and make do with what we've got, instead of thinking of any more ideas or performing other experiments! Capitalism isn't perfect, after all, but it's better than nothin'! *millions of Chinamen commit suicide*

...

>I have no real argument XDXDXD

didn't say there wasn't a cost and i didn't say it was perfect, but the experiments we've seen with marxism have been horrible failures. until we approach a truly post-scarcity world that isn't dependent on cheap foreign labor i don't think we can experiment. nice job on writing off the many millions that died due to soviet incompetence btw.

There are multiple schools of Economics, but only the "Neo-Classical Fusion" (Neo-Classical School, with some elements of Keynesianism thrown in to deal with some of the more obvious issues) is taken seriously within mainstream Academia, to the point that the other major schools (Marxism, Schumpterianism, Post-Keynesiansim, Behavioural Economics, Austrian Economics, & Institutionalist Economics) are described as "Heterodox Economics" if you want to read Economics that actually tries to explain how the world works, and examines Free Markets, and Private-Capital with a critical eye, (rather than just doing more, and more game theory, based on the fundamental, demonstrably wrong assumption that humans are largely-selfish, rational actors), then read up on any of the hetereodox schools listed above (except the Austrian school. Austrian Economics is trash).
If you're asking why the Neo-Classical fusion is overblown in Academia, and the Media, and mainstream economics literature, then read up on both the influence of the Chicago school, and the US, and UK governments' suppression of heterodox economics during the early Cold War, in an attempt to prevent the spread of Marxism.

>christianity is spiritual

Anyway, loose your fedora. It's stopping the blood from reaching your head

>le Holy Spirit
>not spiritual

>Christianity is not spiritual
Durr durr durr u have le hat XDdD

Economics is about deciding what to create, deciding who creates it, deciding who gets what is created, and deciding how to distribute what is created, all while there are scarce resources. None of these questions can be answers without appealing to different values. One thing many people value is private property, another thing many people value are nations. So people who value those things will answer those questions with those values in mind. That is what makes most economists biased towards capitalism. If their values changed then their answers would change.

>answers
answered*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics

>tfw

>Economics is prescriptive

How do I know you haven't just been brainwashed to believe this stuff by Marxissts?

yep

I've been toying with a similar concept in my mind for the past years. I imagine a gradually tiered capitalist system on which people voluntarily agree to give percentages of their wages in exchange of benefits. Something like "capitalism for the rich, socialism for the poor":

>why are people concerned with modeling so biased towards an accurate model?

CAPITALISM IS NOT A "SYSTEM" INVENTED BY HUMANS. It just is.

this

every moment you've spent contemplating this has been wasted. it's long been known that lesser entities are better off exchanging large portions of their freedom for security. indentured servitude is the redpill, not government subscription boxes.

>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and Capitalism
Now please go on to say that anybody who disagrees is a communist.

>its another Veeky Forums cant into economics 101 thread
yay
for non-retards only
openstax.org/subjects/
also /r/askeconomics and /r/badeconomics are unironically good

also was thinking bout doing a economicscopypasta, but will take some time, already got one debunking austrian "economics" though

capitalism formed itself, do you think the romans knew they were being capitalists when they minted? the kangs when they paid laborers for building monuments? All Smith did was explain what had already existed for thousands of years

Factcheck everything I just said. It checks out.
As to whether I've just been brainwashed by Marxists. I don't just read Marxist economics, I also have a keen interest in Behavioural Economics, and think that it fills in all the gaps left by Marx's theories.

>behavioral economics is heterodox
pls go back to r*ddit thx
>le chicago joos illuminati
ok this is /leftypol/ tier trash, you really need to go back
>le rational actor
One of the many signs noobs giving themselves away.

also
chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-signs-youre-reading-bad-criticism-of-economics/

Nice website, thanks. I was already thinking about doing the econ course in Khan academy, which one do you think it's better?

have no experience with khan so idk
also make sure to follow some good blogs:
reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/blogs

youtube.com/user/MrUniversity/videos
basically covers same as the book, but super condensed into 5 min videos

I have to warn though, the book is really slow and repetitive, it does 1 page in 10 pages, etc so use it alongside videos if you don't have the time

reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/index

if you encounter lolberts from /pol/ send them this to piss them off
econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics
>However, post-autistic economists also "assert that neoclassical economics has the characteristics of an autistic child"

EHL EEE EHL

...

As many have already stated, capitalism is a very vague term. It is used to describe relationships that exist with bidding, open markets, and influence and direction of a general monetary authority, among other things, all at one time.

It's almost necessary to specify which aspect of capitalism they are biased towards, to avoid sounding like someone who has just read The Communist Manifesto and that's it.

whats the deal with ecologists and anarchy?

Maybe because that's their livelihood

they're hedging their bets on violent competition creating coordination problems that prevent technological advance

#
>based on the fundamental, demonstrably wrong assumption that humans are largely-selfish, rational actors),
This is the silliest, most autistic post I've read here in a while. Please, PLEASE, if you're actually interested in gaining economic knowledge, don't listen to this guy. He has no idea what he's talking about. People like him are the retards who buy richard wolff-esque desperate conspiracy theories about the prevalence of neo-classicism in academia, and, all things considered, are essentially just sperging out over the concrete economic idea that markets and property are efficient.
Economists (especially marcoeconomists) don't deny that market failures exist, that negative externalities and natural monopolies and imperfect competition all happen. But even paul krugman or whatever- that is, anybody with an actual wealth of economic knowledge, who's contributed to the body of thought in any significant way- has unwielding support of some form of capitalism. Keynesians aren't the anti-capitalist scourge boomer conservatives make them out to be, and all real accepted strains of thought in the field ARE capitalist. Keynes supported free markets and non-gov't-intervention during certain periods of time. Take this guy as seriously as somebody on this board saying that science textbooks are worthless, and that the only real knowledge can be found in alternative sources, or that mainstream sociology is a jewish conspiracy, or that all philosophy besides objectivism is trash because kant (who they've never read and know nothing about, just like this guy sure as hell hasn't read menger or friedman or w/e) is evil somehow. Obviously, people are self-interested actors- the more you study economics, the more you familiarize yourself with the idea that people DO respond self-interestedly to changing incentives and situations, not that they don't. The pseud's tools against econ is limited at this point to crying about the environment, spouting some clintonite pussy hat-tier aphorism about inequality, complaining about things that are in the realm of public choice theory- e.g., money mixing w/ politics, which a fiscal libertarian would be increasingly against- or this line.

>Behavioural Economics,
What the fuck are you talking about? Behavioral econ is incredibly important and relevant to the field as a whole, and tons of studies and research is in the domain of understanding how economic actors behave. Also, as an aside: I'm no Austrian cultist, but out of all the heterodox schools they're probably the most valuable, and the least "trash"- Menger to marginal utility, Bohm-Bawerk to subjective value, Hayek to political economy, etc. "Marxian economics" is a pathetic joke and you've just demonstrated your immense lack of actual knowledge regarding econ (besides repeating ad-nauseum what you heard online) in favor of going on an angry misinformed diatribe about capitalists.

this explanation doesn't make sense

Econ majors piss me off so much. It's like if you combined the shear stupidity of a lib arts major, with the arrogance and presumptuousness of a STEMfag despite the fact that they neither produce cultural value like the humanities, nor any coherent logic structure beyond "muh gdp nigga" or "muh globlazashun gib everyone ipads and uggs an dat makes em hap hap happy nigga". Fucking retard scum of the earth

>Behavioral econ is incredibly important
L O L
O
L

try to name one (1) phenomenon that you can explain with behavioral but not neo-classical economics, and watch me prove you wrong.

Good post, mate.

Yes economics is one of the few disciplines where you can mathematically analyze things during times where mathematical analysis wasn't even a thing. Going back in time and validating your economic theories historically is obviously the best way to see if they are true or not. This is an aspect that modern economics seems to miss.

>central planning won't work because it failed before the invention of high powered computers and essentially everything related to the information age that would allow successful central planning
What are computers

>be you
>wake up
>project the change in quality over time of the contents of my fridge
>conclude that the burgers had better be consumed in the near future
>realize I lack the compliments to optimize pleasure to be received from consumption
>go to building housing institution where goods (including mayonnaise) can be received in exchange for currency I possess
>locate mayonnaise shelf
>assess the situation
>13 brands
>38 flavors
>73 options including sizes
>fucking love capitalism
>consider behavioral economic theory suggesting that consumers would get more utility by having fewer options because it would make decisions less stressful
>dismiss this theory because if it were true the free market would have produced stores catering to those who hate the decision in the form of stores that have fewer options
>literally breadlines
>return to calculating projected utility from various options
>decide on Hellmann's because there's no way so many rational actors would support a subpar product over many years of transactions
>reach for large jar because of savings per unit
>consider current interest rates and projections
>laugh at the thought of forgetting to account for time value of money
>reach for smaller jar of hellmann's
>hand my fiat currency to the free citizen exchanging labor for wage at the current time
>exit market place
>walk to rented domicile
>consider how much more utility I might receive from remaining paper representation of value without government interference in the marketplace
>shed single tear
>let it drip on burger for extra salt flavoring
>eat burger with mayonnaise

capitalism isn't trade, capitalism is the valueing of trade as a virtue, putting the cart before the horse per se, which is why it is inherently sinful like all materialist systems including communism

No one here actually gives a fuck about economics, I never see any of the primary texts referenced, quoted, talked about. Nothing.

>econ majors
>math
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, you're joking right?

Veeky Forums and /k/ are the only libertarian boards. Continental philosophy is more fun to read that boring economic analysis, unfortunately. There are a couple really good, quality posters on here that discuss economics from time to time, all things considered.

No. There some lessons in which I am reading where roughly 1/2 the text is equations.

just so I'm being perfectly clear, what you call "mathematical analysis" real stem majors refer to as "bitch math"

Oh okay sorry. Didn't realize this was 'bitch math'... what the fuck are you on about?

lol what a stupid post. if stores could gain a competitive advantage from offering fewer varieties of mayonnaise, and they aren't doing it, then we're still in neo-classical land because wouldn't you know it efficiency issues arise from a lack of information.

>being greedy is bad
yeah sure, so what does that have to do with holding a realistic worldview? the first two clauses of your sentence are absolute nonsense by the way.

this post is such a self-own

No, not really. Calculus-level math is NOT 'bitch math'.

ikr it's all fucking summation

Econometrics lives

This. Fucking binched corn cob style. so whens the next dsa meeting comrade

That's not econometrics.

Not all economic analysis with mathematics is 'econometrics'. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Veeky Forums doesn't know economics.

This is a book published in the late 19th century ffs.

That is the definition of bitch math. Fancy subscripts covering up hs tier calculus don't make math difficult. Let me know when econ does stuff with abstract algebra or topology

That doesn't even make sense. Economics is not bitch math, no matter which way you look at it, and math is certainly no pissing contest, either. You aren't even approaching learning correctly

This is underrated as fuck. There is seriously no logistical reason why collective planning wouldn't beat out markets in tons of ways at this point. Especially with the resources we actually have at our disposal, and even more with the further automation that will take place.

don't bump threads that are not about books on the book board homo

capitalism is not the best system, but it, as do economic movements, mimic nature and the dance of energies that flow through all things. there might not even be a system.

Absolutely this. The "socialist calculation problem" is entirely obsolete nowadays, the whole debate took place before the fucking Internet was a thing. The circumstances are radically different now. Cockshott & Cottrell adress this in their papers and TAS.

>Hah, according to the laws of economics within my capitalist ideology, your non-capitalist economies wouldn't work! Gotcha!

The funny thing is that leftists have developed socialist economies within the neoclassical model.
Oskar Lange's Economic Theory of Socialism is an example of this.

Probably because Marx worked with the LTV. Of course they do. Neoclassicists and Keynesianism are at ends because of Keynes' functional unemployment, which shows a disparity in the absolute equilibrium point for a supply/demand graph for wage labor.

>There is seriously no logistical reason why collective planning wouldn't beat out markets in tons of ways
if you actually believe this you should not be allowed to participate fully in society. since you're obviously a brainlet I'll help you out with an example: central planning is the functional equivalent of a forced meme.

>Why are economists so clearly biased towards capitalism?

Feel like thats fairly obvious

Yeah, except the very small and unimportant fact that needs aren't fucking fixated but shift all the fucking time you dumb fucking faggot

so does the moon's orbit around the earth but we calculated that just fine back in 1969, checkmate brainlet

10/10

Incredible troll post, placed very well.

Ecology puts a spotlight on self organization of systems, they see a world held up without hierachal domination. The orgins of the formal study of hierachy come from ecology. So they see self organizing systems without arbitrary constraint and higher levels of organization that serve lower levels and emerge from the free interactions of it's foundation.
So ecology is inherently radical. Also it should be obvious that people who see the world falling apart all the time would want revolution. And of course the fact that ecology mostly functions in acedemia plays a role.

b-b-but /leftypol/ keeps pointing towards ha-joon chang , steven keen and others who have debunked economics a gorrilion times! its all a conspiracy, paul krugman, thomas piketty and joseph stiglitz are trying to starve the poor!

t. never opened a single econ textbook

>textbook

To be honest, textbooks have less math than the actual economics primary sources. You would be surprised, some authors spend much of their time constructing mathematical proofs to prove economic concepts, like Leon Walras or Irving Fisher.

Some, however, like Henry George or Ludwig Von Mises spend the entire time just writing words.

Economics is the only discipline I can think of like this.

>CAPITALISM IS NOT A "SYSTEM" INVENTED BY HUMANS. It just is.
To what extent do you mean "invented"? Obviously it wasn't invented by a small group of people and then implemented, but it's still a human creation, whether it is intentional or not. Your insistence that the current economic system "just is" implies that it is outside the control of humans, which is absurd.

Please go back.

PLEASE go back holy shit.

You have a trend of people recommending khan academy or something because they don't understand calculus.

It's not bitch math, like those retards were asserting earlier, but it's not tremendously difficult. Just look up what a derivative/integral is and you can read most mathematical economics texts.

This is why reading Euclid helps too, if you haven't read him. He gets you used to conceptualizing in mathematical proofs, which some economists use constantly.

>Your insistence that the current economic system "just is" implies that it is outside the control of humans, which is absurd.
yeah you can "control" capitalism, until your control mechanism is absolutely shattered by the reality of the thing. our current basket of policies isn't capitalism. All regulations are just coping mechanisms; capitalism is a fundamental truth.

Economics is the preoccupation of small souls

Cold War

>CAPITALISM IS NOT A "SYSTEM" INVENTED BY HUMANS. It just is.

>people will not compete for scarce resources!
this is your brain on academia

I have, in fact, the largest soul, and see economics as a necessary thing the human race must study to survive. Rather than be preoccupied with trivial philosophical concepts, I try to use my intelligence to better the human race by eventually applying my life towards theories and principles which may eventually help fix things.

It is actually something only someone with a grand view of his role in society would study.

Proof that economists are autistic.

Only neo-classical economists are autistic.

This I would have to agree with. Neoclassical economics is far too quixotic.

Go Keynesian or go home.

This. What so many STE majors think is """""""math""""" is really just trivial number-pushing.

>WOAAAAHHHHH, AN INTEGRAL?!?!? THIS IS SOME ADVANCED SHIT!!!!

Anyone with a grand view of the world and society would do best not to flatter themselves too much, lest they get lost in their own self-image.

WOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAH THAT'S A LOT OF PLUS SIGNS!!!!!! THIS IS SOME ADVANCED FUCKIN SHIT!!!!!!!!

You couldn't follow it

>it, like, mimics nature and energy flows, bro
Hippie-tier shit. Go back to wage-slaving like you are naturally-inclined to do.

You're already lost in me, just look at this thread.

Forget about it, loser.

>they see self organizing systems without arbitrary constraint
I don't know a thing about ecology, but can you elaborate this? Imagine there was an advanced alien species observing human society. Would they not be observing a "self organizing system without arbitrary constraints"? Where do we draw the line to determine if a system is "self-organizing" and what do we mean by "arbitrary constraint"?

This is why economists are retards.

We already have computers handling finance. They aren't perfect at resource allocation, they pretty much can only handle commodities with extreme liquidity.

Because when you try to understand economics, because it is interesting, rather than using them to further your preconceived notions of how the real world should work, you tend to recognize clear advantages of market economies. Even Lange's socialism () is based around emulating market mechanisms, but without competition. Lange's system would still require a totalitarian state and I don't quite see how it would resolve the social ownership =/= worker's ownership of the means of production problem that was observed in revolutionary Catalonia (workers put their economic interests' ahead of general society's interests and the central planners put their political interests ahead of the workers' interests).

First off you are thinking about markets. You don't understand exactly what capitalism is. Capital is a value.
Comparing capitalism to energy flows just doesn't make sense, to put it in your terms capitalism is the exclusive,you privatised ownership that is placed on energy flowing within a system, the value doesn't have to be flowing through the owner, (IRL most of it is not) the owner just has to have some abstract convention that gives them arbitrary power of the energy their capital values (a legal system backed by a state, ect.), and thus dominate energy that isn't actually in their possession.
This system means that the person with power over that energy is free to make it's actual possessors do with it has they please, they are free to invest energy they do not actually possess and accumulate more and more control over energy flowing through the system.
I hope this helped explain exactly what private property and capital accumulation mean. It's the biggest propaganda scam in history that meanings of capitalism, socialism and related terms are purposefully obfuscated by those in power.
As someone with a very strong background in ecology and systems science, I can testify that nature doesn't work like this at all. The closet economic doctrine would be liberterian socialism.
Anarchy is a state of the system shifting away from arbitrary domination and letting self organization happen, as is natural.