ITT: People throughout history who will be remembered in 2000 years for their greatness

Dang it /pol/ stay back
lol

And that's after it had the benefit of the doubt and was propped up by anti-communist sentiments, since it offered an alternative to classical economics that Marxism was based upon.

No argument, I see.

Not even /pol/, I'm just pretty sure he'll be remembered as a 'great' man (that doesn't necessarily mean 'nice man' or 'man I approve of morally' or 'man I desire to emulate').

>this is what /leftypol/ actually believe

Really though

>muh leftypol

Just give up

>/leftypol/ is trying this hard

...

But this is historically true. The Austrian School was given the spotlight in the west when communism was a threat because it was explicitly anti-communist.

If I had to choose just one.

...

Nice conspiracy theory commie

...

Not even joking.

...

...

...

...

...

If I got sent to a gulag I would walk in with my head high, at least I would get to serve my people.

2000 is a long time but maybe Neil Armstrong

...

>pic related
Greatest modern day philosopher

Remember when this guy invited Chomsky on his show?

...and then got fucked?

No he did not get fucked at all

kek i was just watching that video
youtube.com/watch?v=IQytIoPhlA0

Literally no one except community college drop outs takes Austrian school economics seriously.

Literally no one except liberals takes keynesianism seriously

keep believing this bro, whatever helps you stave off the self-loathing

...

Nice meme.
Keynesian macroeconomics is a key part of the neoclassical synthesis, which dominates mainstream economics.

Only illiterates use the word Keynesianism as a pejorative.

Nice meme
Austrian macroeconomics is a key part of the neoclassical synthesis, which dominates mainstream economics.

Only illiterates use the word Austrian as a pejorative.

>some faggot who cried like a bitch.

>ywn be this butthurt

>ywn be this butthurt

...

correct

incorrect

What is it with Rothbard that triggers Keynescucks so much that they go straight into non-arguments (see ITT, things like muh academia)?

Is it because of their bizarro empiricism centuries (after it's been btfo by engineers)?
Or butthurt against individualism (methodological)?
Or simply after-the-fact buttblast because Rothbard is not presenting a pleasing view of their authoritarian impulses?

>Austrian economics

>Keynesian economics

Just how better the world would be without Keynes? Marx is fortunately now recognized as a fucktard and Mill too by those who remember him. But Keynes seriously doesn't even attract a tenth of the hate he's entitled too.

>I'll try manipulating the money supply, that's a good trick
>I'll try the multiplicator, that's a good trick

The multiplicator alone should be a meme.

But Austrian economics uses no scientific evidence to come to its conclusions.

Also if it was so great, how come no one uses it?

>philosopher
hahahahahahahahaha

good one

How is he not a good philosopher?

...

What do you mean "scientific evidence"?

Austrian economics is not an empirical theory if that's what you mean, and I don't think any of its writers has ever claim the contrary.

Literally can be said of any a priori study, and rightfully so.
Set theory is not any different.

So I have the response to my question The answer was buttblasted empiricists.

>Leftypol has nothing to do with anything here.
It's about 30% of shitposting, you faggots raid all the time.
>The Austrian school is already considered pseudoscientific dogma by neo-liberal economists and socialist morons.
FTFY
>and it becomes more obsolete with each passing year.
It becomes more and more relevant as Keynesian and neoclassical economics show that government intervention always results in unintended and negative consequences.
>The Austrian school will be a footnote among economic thought at most.
It is pinnical of economic thought, thank you very much.

A priori studies have always seemed to me like the best way to go regarding economics, empiricism, specially in macro, requires too many assumptions to work.

>Claiming to have centralized knowledge
>deducing that because it can't be wholly explained in exactly scientific terms that it's discredited or unfounded
Boy I sure do trust your market predictions in a perfect market world.

>all these people who hate freedom ITT

Daily reminder that classical liberals who believe in individual rights, free market capitalism, limited government, and free trade/free movement of peoples are the true anti-fascists and anti-racists.

By cause and effect, I mean by observation.

We can observe the Keynesian influence on the US Economy prior to WW2 and post.

It can be of course determined because of the massive government spending program of WW2, this led directly to the prosperity of the 1950's.

Even if you disagree, you cannot say that the massive government spending did not lead to another depression in the 1950's.

Also the Federal Reserve QE appears to have brought the US Economy from collapse.

Again if you disagree and say the economy fixed itself, you cannot say that things got worse.

By this, in order for an Austrian economic policies to prove itself to me, it needs to be actually tried and work.

I mean technically the hands off of the Hoover administration could be considered pretty close to Austrian, but it did not prevent the Great Depression.

And to be really fair, Nazi Germany shows that governments can dig themselves out of 50% unemployment and hyperinflation faster than non-intervention can.

.
>And to be really fair, Nazi Germany shows that governments can dig themselves out of 50% unemployment and hyperinflation faster than non-intervention can.
Nope, not with Peace.
They have to plunder other countries.

Peace is a foundation of liberty, without it markets cannot cooperate.

That left and right spectrum is too simple.

There are conservatives that want government to regulate morality.

There are socialists that want libertarian pot laws.

And you can be a fascist with libertarian economics.

I'll take communism over free market ideology any day.

Complain about "cultural-Marxism" all you want /pol/, cultural-VonMisesism would be a shit show to end all shit shows

That's true, but then you get armies of people that want to control the economy, and a priori studies are pretty much useless for this, as all Austrian economics have always clearly said about their work.

>the hands off of the Hoover administration could be considered pretty close to Austrian
It's not good lying so blatantly. At least make it more believable.
>mises.org/system/tdf/Americas Great Depression_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>We can observe the Keynesian influence on the US Economy prior to WW2 and post.
No, we can't.
Any person that has ever been a serious engineer will tell you that it is ludicrous. Only pure theory could explain a causal link here. There is no way to extract anything resembling even a correlation from this kind of evidence. I work in information theory for communication devices. If I made such a bizarre statement as you just did, I would get fired. And I would deserve it.

>I would take poverty over wealth for the masses any day
Good thing you don't have power and I have the right to own Arms.

liberals and conservatives are the same

So if we can't say if government intervention in the economy in WW2 did or did not cause the economic conditions of the 1950's...

...how can we tell if non-interference with the government would be any better?

Hello, useful idiot.

Your whole ideology was created by Trotskyists to ensure your irrelevancy

engineers are people who couldn't hack it in a proper math or physics program

go away idiot

We can't, not from experience.
Which to remain ITT, von Mises has always recognized People like to cite this bit and other bits from writers such as Wieser and Machlup, but often forget to explain that these writers explicitly recognized that their theories could not be proven by the comparative success of less interventionist economies.

>an argument
And here is your tinfoil hat.
Go read a book and hopefully the government won't try and steal your brainwaves.

i listened to tds this week too

t. Social Gender studies major

Most engineers where I work (myself included) went though math and physics degrees.
I'm not Anglo, and here the term engineer is not pejorative, far from it.

Besides, if you really did mathematics, you shouldn't be triggered by a priori studies.

...

That is the most retarded fucking thing I have ever heard and I used to be a libertarian.

So he comes up with a system of economics which he thinks will work, but there is no actual fucking way to tell if it is actually working.

Who in the right mind would keep doing something if you can't tell if its fucking working or not?

You should probably read Foundations of Liberty, and How the west grew rich m8

>philosophy called objectivism
>only arguments are her subjective opinions that selfishness is objective

In a hundred years no one will remember her name or her shitty fiction

Yeah. But that is different from what the other guy is saying.

You can tell from experience that people got rich through economic policy, but if you say we should go Austrian, when we can't actually tell from experience that its working or not is just plain retarded.

You can get insight from an a priori study to devise a course of action that then you can see in operation.

Calculus will never be "proved" or "disproved" because some moron can make a turbine run or explodes.

>That is the most retarded fucking thing I have ever heard
If reading about something that is not empirical is "the most retarded fucking thing" you've ever heard, the problem doesn't lie with me.

Oh so you are saying economics is totally theoretical?

I mean in applied math or engineering, you can tell its not fucking working when the building fucking collapses.

If you can't tell there is something wrong with your economic policy when you have 30% unemployment, then you need to find a system that can be fucking tested.

Nice buzzwords.

>They have to plunder other countries.

We still do that but more discreet though.

That part killed me. It's so true too. The thought of widespread Jeffrey Tuckerism in academia is hilarious.

Ayn Rand will be remembered as an obscure mystery cult along the lines of Scientology as a cultish fad philosophy briefly popular among bored citizens who needed a sense of belonging to fill the vapid emptiness of life during the Pax Americana.

2,000 years from now people will think of them the same way that modern people think of ancient Roman gnostics: people who believed that they figured out all the secrets of the universe and got wealthy selling said secrets to gullible rubes until people caught on to the fact that their ideas were essentially unprovable and thus inapplicable in any practical sense and existed primarily to float the ego of the cult's founder.

Pic related, if anyone is going to still be a household name in 2,000 years it will be someone who actually did something extraordinary with their lives.

A large problem is
>people create a model
>the model assumes perfect knowledge and tries to derive the "perfect right answer"
>When the market doesn't match the model, people say it is in "market failure"
>because the market is "in failure" they push for government intervention to "fix" the "failure" (assuming they are acting in prudence)
>the market now matches the "correct" model
>model changes and now has unintended consequences such as monopoly or Duopoly or shortage or surplus
The problem is knowledge isn't centralized to make a proper definitive and "scientific" market model for the what the market "should be" and there is no definitive way to measure the "correctness" of the market.

Which is why you get retards demanding a $15 per hour minimum wage.

I don't think anyone has argued against that. Certainly not Austrian economists.

Von Mises was one the consultant of the association of American manufacturers and had to recommend something. The manufacturers did ok, though there is of course no way to say it was because of Mises.
Muchlup was heading the Bellagio group, at the time the main finantial think tank of this kind, and had to help devise policies.
Eugen von Böhm Bawerk was ministry of finance of Austria.

People seems to look at the magical formula that you only need to "apply" to get results, and so called Austrian economics has never pretended to be that.

Which leads me to another question I always ask Libertarians?

How can Austrian economics exist if there are market failures and a democracy?

People won't vote for a person who says they won't do anything. They'll be voted out and replaced by someone who will use government to fix the problem.

But really, if market failures like 20% unemployment is normal in Austrian economics, shouldn't something else be tried?

I mean even if you say the government intervention in the economy in the 1940's did not directly result in the economic conditions in the 1950's...

You cannot say that the government intervention stagnated the 1950's economies which was one of the most government spending and high tax burden era's that we had.

Also we did not end up with 30% unemployment when Federal Reverse used QE to attempt to resolve the economy. So it cause things to go Wiemar Germany like.

On top of that, I think there is a dysfunction of cognizance, to view government and the free market as two separate entities. You cannot have one without the other. The government simply acts like an oversized business in that regard.

...

Hell, he's remembered right now for his greatness.

But at least in 2000 years all the butthurt reactionaries will be dead.

...

>How can Austrian economics exist if there are market failures and a democracy?
It can't, which is why libertarians tend to be dismissive of the democratic process and believe in either fully privatizing the government and letting it be managed by CEOs (held accountable only to their shareholders the way that a king only needed to answer to his aristocratic backers) or letting there be a "tyrant of freedom" who will uphold the property claims of wealthy people and maintain a government that only cares about keeping foreigners out and suppressing labor uprisings at home.

>The government simply acts like an oversized business in that regard.
The government proceeds by forcing association with it, it is a difference of kind with businesses, not just size.

>one of the most government spending and high tax burden era's that we had.
Nope. Pic related, data from here whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
As for the 90% tax maymay, I think at this point I don't need to refute this again.

>How can Austrian economics exist if there are market failures and a democracy?
How can calculus be a thing if a pane crashes?

As for the democracy part, it is non-argument. First because it confuses Austrian economics with a political platform. Second because being hard to elect is not an argument against the validity of something.

Why does every lower middle class shlub that buys into the libertarian meme think this would be a good thing?

Lol libertarians literally want a return to the ancien régime

Because they like weed but hate poor people.

>privatizing the government and letting it be managed by CEOs
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You probably mean privatizing this and that industry. But not privatizing the government.

>will uphold the property claims of wealthy people
Indeed, among other property. I don't even know how "wealthy people" are anything special here.
>suppressing labor uprisings
Ok, you're just some socialist that wants his rebolution, perhaps to rob the "wealthy".