I've been digging into a lot of economics lately and fi

Shut the fuck up neet

>>1807018
I'm a full-time engineer. Stop trying to contaminate your cynicism through garbage comments that have nothing to do with the thread.

Don't believe the Austrian garbage although it's popular among /pol/ and /x/ types. Modern economics is a mix of demand-side Keynesianism with supply-side developments since Milton Friedman and other Freshwater economists.

File: Black Economics Man Thomas Sowell.jpg (65KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x540px

>>1807044

>Austrian garbage

Enjoy your inevitable hyperinflation you dumb bitch.

>>1807044
>Don't believe the Austrian garbage although it's popular among /pol/ and /x/ types
I don't go on either board, but I can see where this comes from.
I'm in no place to take any strong stance on the school of thought that works best. That would be just stupid when people who've had their entire careers in these fields still debate each-other and would make me look like a child. Thanks though.

Just trying to find some interesting lectures and tidbits you guys know of from all sides.

>>1807011
>It's amazing how much and how often economists are in disagreement.

You might be mistaken. Most old videos of sowell and friedman tearing shit up are arguing with sociologists and college students. There's not that many big ticket issues new Keynesian (the dominant school of thought right now) and chicago school disagree on. You only find big disagreements if you start stacking austrian school up to other schools.

>>1807088
>There's not that many big ticket issues new Keynesian (the dominant school of thought right now) and chicago school disagree on
but Chicago school is mostly new Keyensians. Monetarism has pretty much merged with modern economics, except of some fringe small differences that still exist in the role of the fed and optimal monetary regime.

>>1807088
This. Academic economics is in full or majority agreement on just about every topic that belongs in the field of study.

"Should the U.S. Gov/Federal Reserve do X" isn't a question debated by academic economists, because it's too opinionated and influenced by external factors (especially politics) . It's analogous to asking Biology Ph.Ds "What's the better animal, cats or dogs?"

If questions like "How is wage elasticity affected by rising expectations of inflation and/or unemployment?" interest you, go ahead and start studying Econ.

Bob Schiller is cool.

efficient markets is a meme

>>1807011
Just know that anything any board recommends on 4chan is a meme. If they say a meme, then it's probably valid in some way or form. Just look at the shit on the /biz/ required reading list, and you'll see that it's mainly bullshit. I mean really.. Das Kapital? Sure, maybe it's a good read if you're a fucking historian. The realm of economics is dominated by shit-heads who are fanboys of a school of thought. After reading through many schools of though, you'll just find someone to appeals to your ideals and desires and then you'll become a shithead too.

>>1807098
>This. Academic economics is in full or majority agreement on just about every topic that belongs in the field of study.
Is this really true? When you say agreement, does that take into account the efficiency of how things are run in the real world?

I feel like I read nothing but criticism for what goes on with the fed, exports, imports and the rules surrounding those.
Those could be just fringe click-bait articles that are noticed BECAUSE they are contrarian, so I acknowledge that.

Are economists in agreement over what Bernanke did during the great recession?

>How is wage elasticity affected by rising expectations of inflation and/or unemployment
Yeah this stuff i've read into quite a bit about. I currently just listen to audiobooks while I drive and skim around articles.
I should get a textbook and be disciplined though, the economics I've taken in college was more accounting than anything.

>>1807124
I'll look into Bob Schiller, thanks.
>efficient markets is a meme
can you explain what you mean?

>>1807198
>Are economists in agreement over what Bernanke did during the great recession?
obviosuly not, but the main question is if they could better with knowledge he possesed at the time. Its very hard to identify a clear-cut better solution that is both less risky and provides larger economic growth than Bernanke's policy.

And obviously there is a disagreement between different schools of thought, but even people like Robert shiller would, I think say that highly liquid markets are largely efficient, but can sometimes be subject to manias. On the other hand I dont think that any EMH guy would say that all stock prices in the markets are 100% efficient and that stock picking is PURE luck. But what EMH claims is that majority of markets behaves as if it were efficient, so EMH is a useful policy/modelling tool.

austrians make jokes of keynessians
keynessians don't make jokes about austrians

that's all you need to know

>>1807419
Case in point, anon. This is clearly a meme statement. A simple Google search would allow you to understand this.

>>1807011
IMO economics is one of the best fields of study even better than most meme stem degrees. Every degree is just a tool for you to use in life. If you are smart enough there's no ceiling in life for you. It's also extremely interesting

>>1807098
> Academic economics is in full or majority agreement on just about every topic that belongs in the field of study.

Spoken like a true economist. The stuff we agree on is economics but that which we disagree on is not. That way we can say all economists agree.

File: krugs[1].jpg (144KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 900x900px

>>1807011
>It's amazing how much and how often economists are in disagreement.

that's because economics is insanely politicized, perhaps more than any other field of science (aside from obvious meme fields like gender studies or sociology)

you get hard right-wing / libertarian guys loke sowell or friedman, whose response to literally every question boils down to "government is the problem, remove government to fix problem"
and you get dudes like pic related who are the complete opposite and cream their pants over the idea of large scale government intervention in the market

>>1807198
>was Bernake's/the Fed's response to the recession the right thing to do?

Perfect example of my point. It's too broad of a question to be asked of academic economics, because it's a question that seeks an answer from personal/political opinion and not from empirical evidence or modeling.

"Did the Fed's policy response to the recession result in higher employment from years 2008-2010 than if they had maintained pre-recession policy?" is an apt question.

"Was 'X' policy 'good' for the American economy in the long-run" is not, because what is "good'"? What is desirable or considered "best," and is that concerning the immediate aftermath of event Y, or its implications for the economy over Z years afterwards?