What does Veeky Forums think about Austrian economics?

Sure, but austrians are the worse offenders.

t*

But they've kicked Hayek and shit out of the modern Austrian School. And Schumpeter isn't Austrian School.

The Wealth of Nations was more focused on markets rather than capital, and it was written at the start of the Industrial Revolution. There are multiple passages where Smith is less than kind to owners (essentially capitalists) who demanded rent from laborers, given that Smith believed in LTV. Marx's Capital is actually a pretty natural evolution from Smith.

Friedman is a pretty good economist when it comes to his theories, but some of the stuff, particularly stuff not related to monetarism, he says is asinine and bullshit that was purely politically motivated. I tend to agree with much of his economic works, but tend to disagree with him on most of his political stances.

Unfalisifiable claptrap.

>Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. Sometimes, indeed, the liberality, more frequently the ignorance, of the landlord, makes him accept of somewhat less than this portion; and sometimes too, though more rarely, the ignorance of the tenant makes him undertake to pay somewhat more, or to content himself with somewhat less, than the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This portion, however, may still be considered as the natural rent of land, or the rent for which it is naturally meant that land should for the most part be let.
>-Smith

>The Wealth of Nations was more focused on markets rather than capital, and it was written at the start of the Industrial Revolution. There are multiple passages where Smith is less than kind to owners (essentially capitalists) who demanded rent from laborers, given that Smith believed in LTV. Marx's Capital is actually a pretty natural evolution from Smith.

Well that's kind of my point. Wealth of Nations is often treated as some sort of "yay, capitalism!" book when it was in fact at points pretty brutal to the then just starting up capitalism. Adam Smith was writing at the end point of mercantilism, and was looking at capitalism from an outsider's perspective, and was thus more honest in his critiques of the new system.

Marx's Capital polarized the field of economics, and caused it to become more political, because the political ideologies of the time (and since) have been almost entirely a response to industrialism and capitalism. So we've reached a point where a genuinely honest criticism can't be had, because any study of economics made is done with the aims of furthering (or attacking) a political ideal.

>memes

Worst meme in history t b h

Smith thought free markets were pretty much unquestionably better than mercantilism though. The problem is the politicization of economics means people conflate free markets with capitalism.

Supercapitalist retards.

Hayek was alright, but modern Austrian economics are full complete memelords on par with Scientologists. I mean consider the shit this school produced since the 1950s:

>Murray Rothbard
A sociopathic Jew who argued it's perfectly okay to abandon your children on the street since it doesn't violate the NAP.

>Gary North
A religious nutjob who advocates establishment of a theocracy based on the Mosaic commandments where it should be legal for parents to stone their kids to death if they disobey. Also thinks economy should be based on the Bible.

>Lew Rockwell
A neo-confederate LARPer.

>Peter Schiff
Conman shyster investor who correctly predicted 1 out of 100 market events and dupes economical illiterates and doomsayers into buying into his investment scheme.

>Stefan Molyneux
A memester Youtube celebrity.

>people think Mises is closer to Rothbard than he is to Hayek

God, I hate Mises Institute. Mises was an uncompromising defender of existence of the state and democracy

>Austrian economics
garbage

I think he followed Friedman not the Austrian school.

>It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

>Schiff
>Molyneux
Are you fucking serious?

Hayek has some good ideas.

The rest is trash-tier.

>Hayek
Okay
>Everyone before or to follow Hayek
Awful

Pic related.

Now post the whole story, faggot. Did you read Liberalism or just pasted it from Reddit?
He didn't say that Fascism was good, just that it was better than Communism, what is obvious. Did you

Mises flewd from Europe because of Nazism, and even if he were a supporter of Fascism on the 1920's (he wasn't) many other were, they were wrong, just like every men is sometimes.

>>Everyone before or to follow Hayek
>Awful

So, Menger, the second most influent Economist of all time is awful?

"uncompromising"

Your point?

I think that was enough.

To say that Mises supported Fascism? No it's not.

"Taxation is theft"- Rothbard

Really makes me think

Menger is not the second most influential economist of all time.

He's not even the second most influential economist of the 19th century.

Marginal utility is the single most important contribution for Economic Science since Adam Smith.

You might not agree if you're a Marxist butthurt, but it's true.

Marginalism doesn't contradict LTV in the way you think it does.

Marginal utility, whilst significant, is in no way so significant that by itself it elevates Menger to being the second most influential economist of all time.

>You might not agree if you're a Marxist butthurt, but it's true.
>If you don't agree with me you're a Marxist
Austrian schoolers in a nutshell.

Yeah, it does. I've read them all, from Menger to Sraffa and every try is just pathetic wishful thinking.
So, who is more important than him?
>>If you don't agree with me you're a Marxist
If you don't agree with Marginal Utility.
>Austrian schoolers in a nutshell.
Oddly enough most of Austrians I know think Bastiat was the greatest "Austrian" of that century, even if he was French.

>So, who is more important than him?
Marx
Keynes
Smith
Hayek

All of the above are indisputably more influential than Menger.

>Menger, the second most influent Economist of all time
>

I should add

>If you don't agree with Marginal Utility.
I do agree with marginal utility. I don't know why you assume I don't just because I say Menger isn't as influential as you say.

He's not even the most important early marginalist, walras is.

>Marx
Only in Socology.
>Keynes and Hayek
Today? Yes. But there would be no Hayek or Keynes without Menger. They are big, but not as big as Menger. Also I personally think Friedman is today more influent the Hayek. Typing both at Google gives more results for him than for Hayek.
>Smith
Yes.
I didn't assume that. I said if you don't agree with Marginal Utility, you're one of them.
Walras' work is great, but Menger came first and I personally prefere his explanations of the origin of the prices.

All marginal utility is saying is that there is not a static fixed use-value. And it's not like Smith (or Marx) was saying that either.

Smith wasn't saying that if you had a billion dollars you should spend it on a billion dollars of water rather than a billion dollars of diamonds because you'll get more utility from it. He was saying the market would sort out the prices not just in proportion to utility, but also in proportion to the cost generating the commodity. That is, the equilibrium of supply and demand in a competitive market. Smith was very much discussing macro, not how you should be managing your expenditures or your business.

Marginalism is important, especially in micro, but it does not flip LTV on it's head.

>Menger came first
Pretty shitty argument, user. Walras is orders of magnitudes more influential than menger. And if we followed this argument we should claim the proto marginalists to be more important than menger.

>Yeah, it does. I've read them all, from Menger to Sraffa and every try is just pathetic wishful thinking.
No it doesn't. I don't think you even understand what LTV is trying to represent.

>But there would be no Hayek or Keynes without Menger
That's a bold claim.

Smith wasn't a total LTV supporter like Marxists rhink, that was Ricardo, whom Marx borrowed the theory to make his own.

Did you read the rest of the sentence? I simply don't like Math in social sciences, like Walras does.
kek
Let's trace the Genealogy of Austrian Economics:
Salamanca>Bastiat/Say>Menger>Böhm von Bawerk>Mises>Hayek

Of course, he could find another great master, but I don't think it is likely.

No he's right. He said
>Marginalism doesn't contradict LTV in the way you think it does.
Now the labor theory of value, or value based on production costs, is precisely what Irving Fisher uses to determine, with the invisible hand of the free market, the return over costs of an option increasing in quantity in gradations as the marginal interest rate of return over cost decreases with each conversion of capital to this option over another. Clearly, this is using the LTV plus the free market to determine the rates of return of the options selected from as it nears the market rate of interest. I'll have you know market clearing and cost-benefit equalizing are what Irving Fisher is all about so I doubt you'll find many other economists as close to Mill's(or Ricardo's) theory of labor-added value. It's not exactly as simplistic as Smith's, but he uses a basket of commodities much as Smith does to determine the interest rate.

Also, to contribute to the thread I read The Theory of Money and Interest by Ludwig Von Mises. It was a largely sociological work it seemed, I found it very interesting. If everything in Austrian economics is this in depth I do enjoy the school. As opposed to approaching fiduciary media creation from the point of increasing the reserve ratio like Fisher, it seems he approaches it from the perspective of modifying the interest rate first through the central bank.

>Did you read the rest of the sentence? I simply don't like Math in social sciences, like Walras does.
I don't see how your preferences are relevant in defining the relative importance of walras and menger though.

>mfw the level of economic discussion ITT
Keep economics in Veeky Forums not Veeky Forums please.

>Let's trace the Genealogy of Austrian Economics
Sure, it's his importance among other schools that we question.

>Smith wasn't a total LTV supporter like Marxists rhink, that was Ricardo, whom Marx borrowed the theory to make his own.
Marx didn't believe in Ricardian LTV either like you seem to think, he just based his modified form of LTV (socially necessary labor time) on it, in which he addressed issues that would later be pointed out by Menger in his refutation of LTV, and based his analysis off of it. It's pretty clear your only intention is to be intellectually dishonest. Marx also drew from Smith's deviations from LTV, namely
>The whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock which employs him

>Only in Socology.
Marx is probably the only economist in history to be so influential that his ideas started a massive amount of wars and killed a massive amount of people.
>Today? Yes. But there would be no Hayek or Keynes without Menger.
Naturally, just as there would be no Newton without Aristotle. But in the long run his followers managed to surpass him in influence.

> Also I personally think Friedman is today more influent the Hayek
I'd agree. But I'm hesitant to say as Friedman is relatively new and I don't think we would be able to tell of his full influence yet.

I remember Mises answering Fisher's argument in Human Action, but I don't remember what he said and I'm to sleepy to look now.

Hence I don't think Math can prove a thing in social sciences I think it makes more sense to use Menger's theory. Even if most of economists doesn't agree with my methodology, I think they also prefere Menger after all he's quite more famous than Walras, but that's no argument, just ad populum.

So we have two votes for Ricardo being an avid LTV proponent eh?

Adam Smith was the one who developed the concept, but Ricardo fine tuned it. The cost of productive equipment altering the relations between profit and wages was a big development in Economic theory and the theory of Ricardian rent was a huge development.

God if only every economist was as intelligent as Ricardo. I swear, what an intense, rather short read his Principles was.

Look at the timeskip between Aristotle and Newton. Hayek predicted 1929 crash only a few years after Menger's death. I don't think he could be this big without Menger.

Have you actually bothered to read any books that weren't about Austrian economics? Because it seems like all your knowledge of other economists are based on Austrian responses to them.

>Marx is probably the only economist in history to be so influential that his ideas started a massive amount of wars and killed a massive amount of people.
That was due to his philosophy and sociology than economy itself.
Yeah, I did. I was once a socialist at college and read Das Kapital. I don't consider myself an Austrian too, I hate these kind of labels and prefere to talk about ideas.

>I think they also prefere Menger after all he's quite more famous than Walras
Are you, by any chance, surrounded by austrians? Because that's some massively ridiculous statement. You could go through your entire economics career without hearing about menger, but you'll hear about walrasian general equilibrium, walrasian models, walras's law, etc all day. Menger has no lasting contribution outside of the austrian school.

>but that's no argument, just ad populum
I'm pretty sure the populum's opinion is relevant in a discussion about their influence.

Austrians and marxists predict crashes every day.

Then explain how Menger's refutation of LTV in any way applies to Marx's LTV, because you seem to think it does.

>than economy itself.
The thing about Marxism is that the economics of it is what underpins the entire ideology and this is very much by design on the count that Marx wanted to be totally materialist in his analysis.

I understand that. I'm just saying that ultimately Hayek managed to become the more influential economist.

>. You could go through your entire economics career without hearing about menger,
If you're a shitty economist, maybe.

>I'm pretty sure the populum's opinion is relevant in a discussion about their influence.
So, let's just Google them. You have almost three times more pages talking about Menger than Walras.
That's true. Timing is the greatest weakness in ABCT and one of the reasons I don't consider myself an "Austrian. It's a good theory, but it's very easy to say "I told you guys" after 20 years.
It's three o 'clock AM where I live and I have to wake up at eight. If I remember, I'll do it tomorrow.

Is it good or low?

>It's three o 'clock AM where I live and I have to wake up at eight. If I remember, I'll do it tomorrow.
I'll give you a protip. You haven't actually read Capital, and it doesn't. Both Menger and Marx had issues with LTV and went addressing them in different ways. And I will slap your shit if you try to plagiarize the mises.org article where they play dumb and claim that socially useful is somehow circular logic and can't simply be explained as labor that fulfills economic demand.

It's a good thing. I doubt you'd find this level of discussion in Veeky Forums.

Economics is a very complex social science /humanities/

Serious question: where the fuck do you live where it was 3 AM when you wrote that post? The fucking South Sandwich Islands?

Probably South America.

>If you're a shitty economist, maybe.
Irrelevant, i'm talking about what is taught. As i said, he has no lasting contributions outside of the austrian school so there's no point in teaching him outside of history of economic thought courses or by some austrian professor.

>So, let's just Google them. You have almost three times more pages talking about Menger than Walras.
This is a retarded argument, so i shouldn't even respond, but i'm bored. If you google something like "menger" in google scholar you'll get more papers than if you google "walras" but most of the menger ones will be from other authors with the same last name. If you google something like "walras economic" and "menger economic" to make sure we are looking at economic papers, you'll get about the same results with walras and about a fourth with menger, making walras twice as cited. But as i said, this is a retarded parameter anyway. Menger is irrelevant in all but one economic school due to his lack of lasting contributions, whatever his quotations may be.

Do people even cite Walras when using Walrasian methods?

GMT -2 doesn't include any part of South America. The east coast of Brazil is GMT -3, so is Argentina and Greenland. I'm pretty sure literally only a few dozen people live in the GMT -2 timezone.

No. That's why it's a retarded parameter, among other things.

>A sociopathic Jew who argued it's perfectly okay to abandon your children on the street since it doesn't violate the NAP.
He didn't say that.

>what is summer time

:^)

Reminder that Austrians and Marxists are treated as retarded jokes by all serious, respected economists.

reminder that Economy is as scientific as Astrology.

There really is nothing worse than you "sane middle ground" types. You have no ability to think at all. The sole argument you have to defend your position is to appeal to authority.

they're ideas rest on some pretty dubious nietzschean claims, especially hayek. keynes is superior.

Science is about predictions. This man predicted the great depression within the week.

I'm not even the guy you're talking to, but you're argument is even worse than his.

First you said than people's opinion is important to know who is more relevant. Than we find out that people talk more about Menger than about Walras. After that, People's opinion is no longer important.

Also I'm not an economist, but I have some subjects on Uni and we studied Menger viewsabout the formation of the price, no one ever mentioned Walras.

Name calling and labels are not arguments. Saying X is a meme, Y is stupid, or Z is pseudoscience is useless information.

Are they right or are they wrong? Is the information useful? Is the argument true or false?

>within the week
>predicting something less than 7 days before it happens
>weather forecasting is science

...

>Than we find out that people talk more about Menger than about Walras.
No, they don't, as explained in that same post.

>People's opinion is no longer important
Amount of citation being a retarded parameter =/= people's opinion being unimportant. Amount of citations doesn't even give you amount of people since you'll have a bunch of austrians quoting him a million times and the rest barely quoting him, not to mention you don't mention walras every time you use his theories because they're implicitly everywhere.

>"sane middle ground" types
You mean every economist ever.

Seriously if you don't have the ability to critically analyze books like Das Kapital and The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money and The Theory of Money and Credit, then why even bother with Economics at all? It is as much a philosophy as a social science.

He has written very thorough comprehensive literature. I've substantially enjoyed his literature.

Well, that doesn't change the fact that you have three times more results for "Carl Menger" than for "Leon Walras" on Google.

In Google Scholar we have almost the same: 13k for Menger and 14 for Walras.

I should remember that Walras is also an economist on the same way Nash was. Therefore, part of his results are probably on other sciences too.

>In Google Scholar we have almost the same: 13k for Menger and 14 for Walras.
Did you even read the post you quoted?
>If you google something like "menger" in google scholar you'll get more papers than if you google "walras" but most of the menger ones will be from other authors with the same last name. If you google something like "walras economic" and "menger economic" to make sure we are looking at economic papers, you'll get about the same results with walras and about a fourth with menger, making walras twice as cited.

Are you fucking retarded?

Just type their full names.

Who the fuck writes "leon walras" when talking about walras equilibrium or whatever else?

Anyone with any notion of technical standards would do this on the references.

With all of this speculation (blaming austrian forums for the huge advantage of Mengerin Google, blaming people with the same name for Menger's advantage at Google Scholars, etc...) I assume that you are more interested in being right than debating. Therefore I will leave this thread and hope that you return to Reddit, where appearing to be correct is more important the truth itself.

But people don't cite Walras.

>Anyone with any notion of technical standards would do this on the references.
But that's incorrect, most people don't mention leon. This should be pretty obvious because when you look up "walras" you'll get almost exclusively references to leon walras, yet when you search "leon walras" you lose the vast majority of the results.

>With all of this speculation (...)
I know i'm right because i'm an economist and it's a ridiculous comparison to anyone who knows anything on the subject. And there's no "menger's advantage" on google scholar.

>blaming people with the same name for Menger
Are you fucking kidding me? If i look up menger in google scholar, on the first page i get 5 articles about chemistry by "FM Menger", 1 by a statistician by the name of "Karl Menger", 2 by the Menger we are talking about, and one by "Schulz-Menger". Should i just accept this to make you happy?

Weather forecasting is science you fucking mong.

Not Austrian, but has anyone read pic related? Apparently this was a HUGE fucking book on political economy in the 19th century.

Ups