Is Austrian Economics just jewry?

Just a coincidence, guy.

Who's the one bottom right? Also, the two on the left aren't Austrians

Milton Friedman. Also not an Austrian. He was the leading thinker of monetarism.

>Ameriblubber thinks aristocracy means "rich people"

here, in addition, Milton Friedman has some of the most eloquent defenses of capitalism I have ever heard, his lectures/Q&A's are worth checking out.

Keynesian obviously.

>Implying that sucking cock of Central Bank isn't cryptojewish
Distributism

Keynes is the only non-Jewish mainstream economist. It's no wonder that Adolf Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht modeled German economy on Keynesianism.

Well, that and Keynes better understood how to not repeat the Great Depression better than any other economist at the time his stuff was published, though there were many good critiques that came after.

Funny you should say that. I agree with the first poster. He's clearly not an Austrian, and he is the leading thinker of monetarism. I agree on lots of his economic ideas. I disagree with almost all of his politics though.

On the other hand, his lectures, Q&As, and defenses of capitalism are utter horse shit and completely politicized. He basically realizes he has a great reputation and is smarter than most everyone else, and uses this to shove bullshit down people's throats. I remember watching one of his Q&As where he was bullying some poor retarded college kid who asked about monopolies in the free market, and Milton just denied they exist, claim they only exist because of the government, and completely ignored the fact that trusts are broken up by governments and naturally the only trusts that exist are trusts that the government allows to exist. But the college kid was just a useful idiot and probably didn't take any economics classes. It's not that he doesn't know better, he just knows he can get away with it. You can tell from his shit eating grin.

He had a huge mistrust of big government, probably because he was worried it would turn into Soviet central planning or something, which is awful.

>its the distributism shitposter

Jesus buddy, you triggered there by people who have differing political views than you? How the hell does Milton Friedman get under your skin that badly? In reference to your example, I don't think he was ignoring anything, he was simply trying to get at the root of what the undergrad was referring to. He's not an idiot, he doesn't just make stuff up because it suits him - he gladly accepted and engaged in discourse with other intellectuals in his field and others.

Oh I just looked up Rothbard and apparently Wikipedia considers him Austrian. Is that legit? Always thought anarcho-capitalism is something distinct

Ew wtf

>Nazism
>Not 1:1 copy of Judaism
Nice try but no.
>Implying that it wasn't keynesians practices that lead depression to be great in the first place
Kto?

But...it wasn't Keynesian practices that lead to the Great Depression. Keynes wrote his work as a response to the Great Depression and he was addressing what went wrong.

By work, I mean specficially his General Theory of Employment.

>Jesus buddy, you triggered there by people who have differing political views than you?
I have an issue with authority figures, I consider Friedman an authority, one that I actually agree with on many things.

>How the hell does Milton Friedman get under your skin that badly?
He gets under my skin because I can tell how much bullshitting he's doing and taking advantage of his authority to shill bullshit.

>he was simply trying to get at the root of what the undergrad was referring to
No, he really wasn't. Monetarism has very little to do with the free market magically fixing things. Monetarism is about macroeconomic intervention by having a monopoly over the supply of money.

>He's not an idiot
I said that.

>he doesn't just make stuff up because it suits him
He did though.

>he gladly accepted and engaged in discourse with other intellectuals in his field and others.
That doesn't mean he didn't make up bullshit.

It's like how Chomsky on the left is an extremely intelligent man, but he does on occasion, make up complete an utter bullshit to push a political agenda.

Oh so you tell me that interrupting the economy, increased government spending and all that shit that Keynes advocated and those two idiots, Hoover and Roosevelt, did to "save economy" isn't keynesian at all? I remind that USA had crisis in 1920 (or something near that) looked started worse than '29. Gusses what? Gov do shit and they recovered in less than three years.

>Monetarism has very little to do with the free market magically fixing things. Monetarism is about macroeconomic intervention by having a monopoly over the supply of money.
You're mixing terms and you're getting confused on what you're actually talking about. By monopoly, weren't you principally referring to a business monopoly in private trade? But now you're referring to a monopoly on the money supply? What exactly are you referring to?

As far as your comments go in regards to Chomsky, he is a complete sophist and his political views basically reduce down to Anti-West, anti-Capitalist.

Anyway, your claim that Milton Friedman "makes up bullshit" is pretty much unsubstantiated, I even looked up videos on which he talked about monopoly and have yet to find one where he argued that they don't exist. He simply states that in instances where you DO have monopolies, you have government intervention. He's not saying that monopolies wouldn't exist without government intervention, he's just saying that the government is the most realistic way of achieving a monopoly situation.

What the hell are you even saying? Keynes was not a household name before the Great Depression, this is basic economic history.

>Do exact same shit that Keynes advocated few years after you already do this
>It's not keynesianism
Fact that it wasn't named keynesianism back then doesn't mean that it wasn't keynesianism

>You're mixing terms and you're getting confused on what you're actually talking about.
No I'm not. You are.

>By monopoly, weren't you principally referring to a business monopoly in private trade?
Yes.

>But now you're referring to a monopoly on the money supply?
You can't exactly control the supply of money otherwise.

>What exactly are you referring to?
I'm referring to different kinds of monopolies.

>As far as your comments go in regards to Chomsky, he is a complete sophist and his political views basically reduce down to Anti-West, anti-Capitalist.
Yes? And? He's a smart man that engages others, and saying bullshit to push his political agenda.

>
Anyway, your claim that Milton Friedman "makes up bullshit" is pretty much unsubstantiated, I even looked up videos on which he talked about monopoly and have yet to find one where he argued that they don't exist. He simply states that in instances where you DO have monopolies, you have government intervention. He's not saying that monopolies wouldn't exist without government intervention, he's just saying that the government is the most realistic way of achieving a monopoly situation.
Except DeBeers because Jews. And no, he was saying that monopolies wouldn't exist in the free deregulated market. The question was about how the free market would deal with monopolies. And he said they wouldn't exist because competition and the only reason monopolies, except DeBeers, exist is because of government.

You have a severe misunderstanding of the Great Depression and what made it so bad. 1/3rd of the banks in the country close down, people were running on the banks and currency spiraled down into massive deflation. The Federal Reserve did not do their function which was to help out the banks that were struggling during the bank runs. Had they simply done their job, the Great Depression would not have been near as bad as it was - 1/3'rd of the money supply evaporated, that shit is huge.

Hoover really didn't do shit, he wanted to wait the deppression out. Roosevelt pumped a fuckload of money into the ecnomy and it helped. In Germany Hitler did the exact same, it also helped. Go peddle you Austrokike memes somewhere else.

Show me ONE instance where Milton Friedman has ever stated that "in a free market, there would be no monopolies." I'll wait.

Pretty much going to ignore your reference to "different kinds of monopolies" because you aren't making a coherent point.

Also, is your claim really that government is the only vehicle for busting up monopolies, and that foreign competition has no role to play? The fact is that government HAS A ROLE TO PLAY in the creation of monopolies, the best anti-trust measure is free trade. Big corporations are not FIGHTING with government, they RELY on government in order to monopolize.

>DeBeers
Finally, this dude had a monopoly over a global trade. How exactly is one nation's government going to exert control over a global enterprise? Like the US government could have stepped in and busted his shit up just because he had a monopoly? Lay off the weed, bro.

De Beers' market share of rough diamonds fell from as high as 90% in the 1980s to 33% in 2013,[41][42] because of a more fragmented diamond market with more transparency and greater liquidity.[43]

Gee. Looks like the free market had something to say about his monopoly after all.

>Hoover really didn't do shit, he wanted to wait the deppression out.
So:
>Keeping payrolls on the same level what lead to unemployment on 28,3%
>Raising tariffs what lead to custom war with Europe and pretty much killed American export
>Spending that much, that even after he entered the office with 700 mln surplus ended with 2,6 bilions in deficite (and he was first to do that)
>"Helping farmers" that ended up with wheat, that coset less than other farm products, sure, costed 50% more than in Canada
>Public works that costed more in four years than in 30 years before that
is "not doing shit"? Give me a break, New Deal is Hoover Polices up to eleven, nothing new or more.

Well he certainly said that reduction of government intervention and free trade reduces the amount of monopolies. It's really not a substantiated claim. He only lists examples of government supported monopolies. It's like in his mind, government they only difference in government intervention is the degree, not the type.

>Pretty much going to ignore your reference to "different kinds of monopolies" because you aren't making a coherent point.
Because those aren't supposed to be related ideas. You're the only conflating them because they both contain the word monopoly. He thought free trade would magically fix the monopoly problem, at the very least, fix it better than any kind of anti-trust policy.

>Also, is your claim really that government is the only vehicle for busting up monopolies
It's an important one.

>foreign competition has no role to play?
Competition in general, not just foreign competition, does reduce the potential for monopolies and trusts. It doesn't magically solve monopolies.

>The fact is that government HAS A ROLE TO PLAY in the creation of monopolies
The fact is that the state is an entity that can break up trusts, and every trust that exists does so with the state's blessing, otherwise they'd be broken up.

>Big corporations are not FIGHTING with government, they RELY on government in order to monopolize.
Isn't this obvious? I mean you idiots are given a democracy with universal suffrage eve for non property owners, and you still such corporate dick because they brainwash you. They've be fighting with the government if you stupid people actually tried to control government. But you don't. Government is power. You have a fucking liberal democracy, one where you are supposed to be in control, not a mercantilism monarchy, and the best answer you can come up with is government is bad? Just give up your power and let other people with other forms and distributions of power take over. Smart.

DeBeers was Milton's own example of an exception. Are you seriously saying it's okay if monopolies only last 30 years? But don't worry, it will eventually sort itself out after a generation?

>Well he certainly said that reduction of government intervention and free trade reduces the amount of monopolies. It's really not a substantiated claim.
It's fucking obvious. Free trade = more competition = less chance of monopoly.

>Because those aren't supposed to be related ideas. You're the only conflating them because they both contain the word monopoly.
YOU are the one that started talking about monopoly on money supply when we were talking about BUSINESS MONOPOLIES, genius.

Anyway, I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it's fucking nonsense.

>are you seriously saying it's okay if monopolies only last 30 years
What was to be done about it, genius? Who had the jursidiction to bust up the monopoly? And yes, I am saying it's okay, and IT'S AN EXAMPLE of the free market busting up a monopoly, you fucking turd. But ohhh, it took too long to happen, we can't have monopolies for such a long period of time! Get the fuck over yourself you whiny baby.

>you idiots are given a democracy
What shithole country are you from again?

>It's fucking obvious. Free trade = more competition = less chance of monopoly.
lols

>was bullying some poor retarded college kid who asked about monopolies in the free market, and Milton just denied they exist, claim they only exist because of the government, and completely ignored the fact that trusts are broken up by governments and naturally the only trusts that exist are trusts that the government allows to exist.
>>he was simply trying to get at the root of what the undergrad was referring to
>No, he really wasn't. Monetarism has very little to do with the free market magically fixing things. Monetarism is about macroeconomic intervention by having a monopoly over the supply of money.
Yeah. See, you're a fucking moron, because you started talking about monetarism when we were talking about business monopolies in private trade. You brought it up, dipshit.

Yes, common sense really is hilarious! It's much better to be a statist fucking idiot.

>It's fucking obvious. Free trade = more competition = less chance of monopoly.
If you mean Adam Smith "free trade" free from economic privilege, yes. You you mean Reaganite deregulation "free trade" then no. Regulation can serve to increase competition.

>YOU are the one that started talking about monopoly on money supply when we were talking about BUSINESS MONOPOLIES, genius.
It was a completely separate point. That his politically biased talks on other shit had very little to do with his own notable economic theory. I never said that the government having a monopoly on money somehow disproves his theories on free trade and monopolies, nor was that implied.

>Anyway, I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it's fucking nonsense.

>i have no response.

>What was to be done about it, genius?
Collective bargaining or monopsony can counter monopolies. Setting trade regulations is essentially economically similar to collective bargaining.

>Who had the jursidiction to bust up the monopoly?
Who has the jurisdiction to bust up Chinese market manipulation?

>But ohhh, it took too long to happen, we can't have monopolies for such a long period of time! Get the fuck over yourself you whiny baby.
>i have no response again

Also, I'm not anti-free-trade, as much as this post may been to imply it. I think protectionists are retarded. I just subscribe to free trade as Smith describes it, not as Republicans describe it.

>Yeah. See, you're a fucking moron, because you started talking about monetarism when we were talking about business monopolies in private trade. You brought it up, dipshit.
I did bring it up. I was saying that he was making up bullshit unrelated to his specialty, which was monetarism. I was saying Milton Friedman is a monetarist, but he is speaking politically biased shit that has little to do with monetarism.

>i have no response
Why would I waste my time responding to complete dogshit? There was nothing substantial in that drivel to respond to.

>Collective bargaining or monopsony can counter monopolies. Setting trade regulations is essentially economically similar to collective bargaining.
Trade regulations are the greatest weapon of those who wish to monopolize. They do not bust monopolies. "Collective Bargaining" sounds like horseshit.
Learn to fucking write, then.

I really need to stop responding to people from shithole countries that can't write English to save their fucking lives.

>i have no response again
>i conveniently left out the actual response in your response, because I can't argue to save my fucking life
Fixed that for you.

>Trade regulations are the greatest weapon of those who wish to monopolize.
Well yes. Government is a powerful weapon as shown by mercantilism. You have a fucking democracy, you should be able to appropriate it and use it for your own benefit. You sound like a gun control advocate. Guns are bad and therefore we should ban all guns.

>"Collective Bargaining" sounds like horseshit.
Again, you have no argument as just dismiss things. This is entirely conventional economics. There's nothing heterodox about collective bargaining.

>Learn to fucking write, then.
I was relying on you on not being a complete idiot and thinking that I was implying that monetarism having monopolies over money supply has something to do with the free market fixing monopolies.

>But ohhh, it took too long to happen, we can't have monopolies for such a long period of time! Get the fuck over yourself you whiny baby.
Are you serious? That's supposed to be a response? A monopoly isn't a monopoly because it isn't an eternal monopoly?

>I was relying on you not being a complete idiot
>I can't write to save my fucking life and I can't stand it when I get called out on my failure
You brought up monetarism for no fucking reason, dipshit! You could have just said:
> Milton Friedman is a monetarist, but he is speaking politically biased shit that has little to do with monetarism.
But instead you just started talking about "monopolies" in regards to the quantity of money.

Fuck off back to your shithole country no one cares about.

Where the FUCK in that response does it say that a "monopoly isn't a monopoly" you DENSE fucking idiot? I SAID that a monopoly that gets busted up after 30 years ain't a big fucking deal. The original claim was that monopolies can't be dealt with by the free market, which was FUCKING WRONG, and DISPROVEN with the example that the statist fucking retard used when he mentioned "muh DeBeers" like he thought he won. THE FREE MARKET WORKS, you fucking idiots.

Here's your (Human Interaction)

>You brought up monetarism for no fucking reason, dipshit!
When talking about Milton Friedman, monetarism is always relayed. This is like talking about Keynes, and claiming bringing up Keynesianism is a non-sequitur.

>But instead you just started talking about "monopolies" in regards to the quantity of money.
I felt the need to describe monetarism to you because I doubted you knew what it was. Veeky Forums isn't exactly the place I'm going to write up a perfect publication worthy essay.

>Fuck off back to your shithole country no one cares about.
Do you really just try to win arguments by saying they come from a country you don't like?

Tell me what shithole country you call home.

>monetarism is always relayed
We. Were. Talking. About. MONOPOLIES. BUSINESS MONOPOLIES.
NOT GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES ON MONEY SUPPLY.
BUSINESS.
MONOPOLIES.

These two things are not fucking related, genius.

Holy fuck you're a retard.

It's not dealt with by the free market though. It's like saying fuck flu shots because your body will take care of the flu after a couple of weeks.

>I'm a statist retard and the free market is wrong because the gubmit is good!

We were talking about Milton Friedman. I already explained this. I already explained what you thought I implied wasn't what I meant. You keep nitpicking and trying to make an argument out of your interpretation of an unclear comment even when there is none to be had. At best it can be summed up as I wasn't clear when I wrote it and you didn't understand what I was trying to get at. It's already been clarified. At this point you're just clinging to it.

United States of America, I can confirm it is in fact a shithole.

>you keep nitpicking
>i can't write and I fucking know it, please stop bullying me

>United States of America
Yeah and I guess that's why you keep saying "your democracy" like you don't live in the country.

ok bud. Have fun writing your fucking dogshit prose in order to "win" your argument that WE GOTTA RELY ON BIG DADDY GUBBMIT

Government isn't the same as the state, and yes, if I'm enfranchised and exercise a measure of control over the government, I can, along with other people, implement policies that are good for me.

This is the exactly the same logic corporations use when they try to control government. They implement policies that are good for them.

Government is a tool to implement policies that are good for whoever controls it just like any other form of power. That's common sense.

>government isn't the same as the state
what will this retard say next?

>exercise a measure of control over the government
What fantasy land are you living in, exactly?

>Yeah and I guess that's why you keep saying "your democracy" like you don't live in the country.
I assume you live in the English speaking world, and you live in a liberal democracy. I don't assume you're from America. We have no flags here. Are you really that MURRICA FUCK YEAH that you think the USA is the only liberal democracy on earth? I assure you, it's pretty normal for the western world.

>WE GOTTA RELY ON BIG DADDY GUBBMIT
If you control the government, its yours to do with as you please. It's not about relying on government. It's about using the available means to better your own situation. In a liberal democracy, government should be one of those things.

>if you control the government

Wow! I can't wait for the day when that'll happen, huh? Hope that works out for you, you fucking simpleton.

I am a practicing Catholic. Give me one good reason why I should listen to ANY of these Jews, and not just ignore them all.

It's not though. Even anti-statists have ideas about governance.

Let me guess, you don't vote in local and state elections, and you think the president is the only thing that matters?

You're a dumb fucking "liberal", aren't you? I recognize this kind of idiotic thinking anywhere.

Christ was a Jew.

>voting in local elections
>republicans control most state legislatures
>he must be a libruhl
>trump 2020

>United States of America
what a fucking surprise
>I can confirm it is in fact a shithole.
mostly thanks to idiots like you

Christ was the last Jew. Christ ended Jewishness. After Christ, there are no more proper Jews, only liars and pretenders.

>i'm an idiot liberal and I'm being called out on my idiocy!

10/10 posts would read again

Universal ideologies are all the work of Jews. In an unpolluted European society, everything would be decided pragmatically.

What the fuck does this thread have to do with Veeky Forums? Mods move this thread to /pol/ please.

But Rothbard did nothing wrong

hail odin