>>570536 No economic school has ever been practical. To be fair with the Austrians, they are the only ones to admit it and outright say that they won't give you constructionist solutions to make you wealthy.
>>571025 Here are the links to the discussion, see for yourself: >http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223735?&Search=yes&searchText=sraffa&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsraffa%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D1932%26ed%3D1932%26la%3D%26jo%3Deconomic%2Bjournal%26Search%3DSearch&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=6&returnArticleService=showFullText&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents >http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223821?&Search=yes&searchText=sraffa&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsraffa%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D1932%26ed%3D1932%26la%3D%26jo%3Deconomic%2Bjournal%26Search%3DSearch&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=6&returnArticleService=showFullText&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents >http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223822?&Search=yes&searchText=sraffa&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsraffa%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D1932%26ed%3D1932%26la%3D%26jo%3Deconomic%2Bjournal%26Search%3DSearch&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=6&returnArticleService=showFullText&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>>571084 There's a ton of critiques hayek was unable to answer and the first paper is only 11 pages so you should just read it, but the strongest point is that hayek's assumptions lead to multiple interest rates (and equilibria), and without a natural interest rate the cycle theory falls apart. You can read the paper for free by registering to jstor and adding it to your shelf if that's your problem.
>>571232 >So how'd he win the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 then? Well, let's take a look to his works prior to the nobel: >"The Transmission of the Ideals of Economic Freedom," (1951) >John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Friendship and Subsequent Marriage (1951) >The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1952) >The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology (1952) >Capitalism and the Historians (1954) >The Political Ideal of the Rule of Law (1955) >The Constitution of Liberty (1960) >Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967) >A Tiger by the Tail (1972) >Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy (1973) Do they sound like economic theory works or like economic philosophy works to you?
>>571266 I didn't left them out. If you are going to take his works from that period the argument of "he only had like what 50 years of career ahead of him" doesn't make much sense, on top of being extremely obscure and uninfluential books, therefore having little to do with the nobel. From wikipedia (yeah, it's a shit source, but it's the same thing you'll find anywhere else): >Hayek never produced the book-length treatment of "the dynamics of capital" that he had promised in the Pure Theory of Capital. After 1941, he continued to publish works on the economics of information, political philosophy, the theory of law, and psychology, but seldom on macroeconomics. At the University of Chicago, Hayek was not part of the economics department and did not influence the rebirth of neoclassical theory which took place there (see Chicago school of economics). When, in 1974, he shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal, the latter complained about being paired with an "ideologue". Milton Friedman declared himself "an enormous admirer of Hayek, but not for his economics. I think Prices and Production is a very flawed book. I think his [Pure Theory of Capital] is unreadable. On the other hand, The Road to Serfdom is one of the great books of our time."
Don't feel too bad though, sraffa destroyed neoclassical economists (see the cambridge capital controversy) and marxian economists (see his critique of marxian value) too.
>>571313 Eh, I don't know. I'm not knowledgeable enough on either Hayek or his arguments (for and against) to understand. But if Friedman didn't like his economics work I guess I'd concede that he wasn't that great.
>>571391 I don't have the time to read his entire bibliography and the assorted other readings for/against his arguments. Hayek hardly ever comes up in my life, and most experts today don't use a lot of what he proposed, so why bother?
Not wanting to be ignorant, but not wanting to waste my time tbqh.
>>570932 But with the existence and availability of credit and speculation, there is always going to be a severe boom and bust, depending on 1) how severe the attraction of capital is 2) how much the drain on the money of the society is going to continue, by speculators not trying to lose on their 'long', sometimes hypothecated, investments
You know whats funny, is that in the 19th century J.S.Mill said both of those things regarding the influence of credit on market fluctuations.
>>572027 >But with the existence and availability of credit and speculation, there is always going to be a severe boom and bust No. The cycle happens (only one of the reasons) because the central bank lowers interest rates to levels lower than those that would have been reached by the free-market. The easy availability of credit gives banks an "ok" signal to loan to higher risk people, generating a brief and unsustainable boom period.
In this case, the boom happens because of high interest rates however, because of the increased demand for loans. The creditors have to raise the interest rates, like in the case of sub-prime mortgages, for the large amount of speculation.
OP here. The reason I even ask is that it seems to reduce everything to such common sense that it is beyond reproach. If anything, it seems to reduce economics to a load of trivialities. The book seems to acknowledge this when it gives the entire lesson within the first two pages.
I'm fairly certain that varoufakis is talking Keynesian shilling in the below video.
>>572855 I think you are mistaken. The boom happens because of easy credit / low interest rates. Its the central bank that was the main factor in the case of subprime mortgages, not the demand for loans. Easy credit for risky loans was what planted the seed for the crisis. The trigger was the rise in interest rates.
>>575323 >still believe in It explains intersectoral price tendencies, 7 year and long run OCC related price collapses, crises and the long run tendency for the rate of profit to decline. It explains proletarianisation and the expansion of the commodity form.
It provides a tool kit for dismantling the value form from production outwards.
Try Harry Cleaver "Reading Capital Politically" introduction.
>>573101 >The reason I even ask is that it seems to reduce everything to such common sense that it is beyond reproach.
I agree that this approach is trite and usually if any book advertises itself this way, it's a red flag. However, the book is worth reading and is surprisingly prescient for being written in the 40's or 50's. It's good if you are looking for some core economics material without overwhelming yourself with excessively specialized content. I'm very much an economics layman and found it valuable, but also understand that I'm reading a perspective on a subjective topic regardless of the author's attitude.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.