Can you truly increase employment and the money represented in

>talking about economics on a business and finance board

you should probably head to /pol/

>>1780649
I had a /relatively/ decent economics discussion between someone from the Mises institute on here not so long ago.

Economics IS in the purview of this board, after all.

>>1780637
yes but only in the short run

>>1780687
how do you figure?

economics is traditionally a separate discipline from business and finance

>>1780687
Austrian economics is the only real economics

>>1780698
Business and finance are subsets of economics. Practical vs theoretical, if you will.

>>1780637
this is called inflation. more capital flows to the owners of the means of production because wages rise slower than inflation.

>>1780702
THE LONG RUN DOESN'T MATTER JUST BELIEVE IN MY MONETARY POLICY

>>1780705
not an accurate statement at all

>>1780649
Micro economics is inherently tied to business and finance

Macro economics is tangentially tied to business and finance

>>1780725
Look man, use whatever definition you want, but the courses are grouped together at most universities.

>>1780709
JUST PRINT MORE MONEY

>>1780746
physics and biology are typically grouped together at universities, and yet physics is far closer to engineering (which is usually in a separate department) than it is to biology

what's your point?

>>1780637
>increase employment
why do you want to increase employment?

People don't want to work, they want wealth. There is a difference. We want to encourage wealth creation, not work creation. Work = poverty.

No, due to downward nominal wage rigidity

>>1780834
I just... where do you get food from idiot? People have to be engaged in some form of productive work otherwise we won't have things to do things with.

>>1780851
What if you fix the money wages short term and decrease them overall at the same time?