Why is he so brilliant and influential, unlike Marx?

somewhat new to the subject but let me get this straight: keynes and his "business cycle" which he believes is regulated by demand is full of shit.

for hayek credit and interest rates regulate or control the business cycle. is this similar to milton friedman or the idea that how much currency is in circulation decides whether this "business cycle" is up or down?

>people who have actually run a successful business
Do milk shops count?

>deification of business owners
Let me guess, you are american.

Well, what are your arguments for thinking that it's "full of shit" if you are new to the subject?

Hayek's theory on interest rates was refuted by sraffa.

If economists understood the economy, they would call themselves ecological economists.
Daily reminder that economics is the study of a virtual system that is incongruent with reality.
>inb4 dumbos get mad
Socialist, capitalist, you're all fucking retards.

not my argument since I'm pleading ignorance but i am asking if keynes and hayek are at odds, particularly when it comes to what exactly regulated the business cycle, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

If I am sick I go to a doctor. If I need my pipes fixed I go to a plumber. If I want to learn about economics where else would I go?

I am not deifying them, it is just a fact that they have more knowledge in this field.

Business owners barely have any knowledge of macroeconomics and administration is barely related to economics at all. Doctors study to cure sick people. It's a pretty retarded analogy.

also I guess I use the phrase "full of shit" because I guess I'm implying its possible to have an economy without a business cycle? is that possible or ever been speculated on?

Yes, some economic schools aim to "smooth out" the business cycle (particularly keynesians).

Daily reminder that Hayek was essentially a socialist. Mises is goat, though

You're gonna have to back that one up.

yeah the chucklefuck barely breaking even running an auto body shop in my town should really be take seriously when he goes on rants about Austrian economics "cuz he knows da numbers gotta add up" n shiet...

Your philosophy would be a lot more convincing if you guys ever had any arguments besides repeatedly insisting you're right and we're economically illiterate. Seriously, it's never anything else. You can't even be bothered to change the image for your thread.

Hayek is a bit of a joke anyway who was more of a hindrance than a help to your cause. I'd suggest looking into Bryan Caplan if you want to why he's so awful even from a pro-market perspective.

Analytical economics in the vein of biological classification is fine. MV=PQ, etc. Prescriptive extremist economics like the commies and Austrians shove down peoples throats is religion. Dogma without factual basis.

The reality is there is no grand economic school that will promise prosperity, and that ournsystems should be ruled by a conservative pragmatism that carefully figures out what level and form of interventionism is ideal. None or complete are obviously both shit house retarded.

>Marx
>Not influential
Marx is quite possibly one of the most influential people to ever live. Whether or not you agree with him it's indisputable that the sheer magnitude of his influence is astonishing.

It is literally godlike.

Because he understood economics.

too bad economists mostly don't understand society

t.stirner

>Seriously, it's never anything else.
Except the countless times we prove your retarded ideology wrong.

Do you EVER have an argument?

Unless where talking about a natural law/ resource based economy. I think a free market based in reality sounds pretty good. We would have to collectivize our natural resources and establish a technocracy that governs the allocation, monetization, and distribution of our natural resources.
Allocation by way of applied ecology and applied ethics
A weight based monteization using a crypto currency that is created with the monetization of a resource and destoryed when used to purchased a good of equal weight, but can be traded indefinitely for services and virtual goods.
Example we let Bob have 20 kilos of rubber and 20 kilos of copper, he makes 100 meters of coated wire with a market price of .4 kilos per meter. He makes 40 kilos and pays Jim 5 kilos, Jim buys a pornhub pass with it, the pornhub people pay Jeff with it and Jeff spends it on 5 kilos of lettuce, the 5 kilobucks is destoryed and new kilobucks are created for the value of the lettuce.
The economy is now regulated by science, leaving democracy to our social systems, and socialism to the production of post-scarcity goods.
Now I don't know if something like this can actually work, but it sure is fun to think about.

[COLAPSE]

The three on the top are okay responses, the three points on the bottom are completely retarded. The second point alone shows that the guy writing didn't even read the first chapters of the first volume of das kapital.
And that user is correct, you almost never give arguments, even if those arguments to exist.

do exist*

>getting hit by a stick is socially necessary and therefore labor except its obviously not socially necessary than therefore not actually labor
>implying workers dont start coops where they are the owners and they hire management instead of the other way around and implying the reason why this isnt more common is because ownership takes capital
Good points for someone who has never touched Marx with a 10 foot pole.

...

>Austrian economists are retards, but Marxist are even more retarded!
Glad I'm neither of those.

...

1: They have real practical experience which can be easily extrapolated to macroeconomics. How good they are at extrapolation is another matter.

2: Not all business owners are akin to the "chucklefuck barely breaking even running an auto body shop". Most have a decent understanding of how wider events will affect the market, they have to.

3: Also this is why I put top tier traders at the top who have practical experience with the wider economy. They not only need to know how events will affect a particular market, they must decide which market will yield the best opportunities.

You will find my rankings are quite sound.

Stirner had some good ideas. You can't escape the essential truth that property is in part a spook that anyone can cast aside and you have to watch out for thieves. However even amongst pirates there agreements on how to share the loot and where to bury gold, if only you know where the gold is buried it is essentially your property. Also as Ayn Rand says...

>Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

>1: They have real practical experience which can be easily extrapolated to macroeconomics
They have practical experience in something that has nothing to do with macroeconomics.

>3: Also this is why I put top tier traders at the top who have practical experience with the wider economy.
Most traders don't know shit about "the wider economy". A good bunch of them follow the astrology-level pseudoscience that is technical analysis. Some of them know how to valuate enterprises given some parameters and deduce if the stock of over or under valued. Some of them have inside information. A little few know macroeconomics.

But Marx was hugely influential. Vastly more influential than Hayek really. How many nations did Hayek's ideas wind up creating?

ROFL @ filename

>However even amongst pirates there agreements on how to share the loot and where to bury gold, if only you know where the gold is buried it is essentially your property. Also as Ayn Rand says...
Literally a non-sequtier

>Hayek
>Ancap
retard