Which school is better out of these three options: Neoclassical

File: Malcolm X.jpg (54KB, 604x437px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 604x437px

For me? It's the Chicago School. The best economic system.

>>2135932
>its a cryptoaustrian thread implying austrians are on the same level as neoclassical and keynisian and ignoring monetarist and chicago

>>2135947
Chicago School is still neoclassical.

>>2135947
Too bad, you must choose.

Also, Austrian economics is an intriguing perspective on economics. I think the idea of looking at economics from the idea of a marginal use-value theory of exchange is interesting. Some Austrian economists use limited statistics, sure, but that doesn't mean a certain level of empirical analysis isn't there.

>>2135956
Austrian economics is always like reading a book on philosophy.

Neoclassical economics is like reading a mathematical proof sometimes.

Keynes is... well. Keynes.

Neoricardian

File: marxreloaded.jpg (29KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x300px

Marxism

>>2135973
Ricardo was a fucking genius. Wrote way back in the early 19th century about economics and influenced Keynes in the mid 20th century.

His theory of economic productive inefficiencies maintaining themselves over long periods of time was referenced constantly in Mill's Principles.

Principles, by the way, for anyone interested in that verbose book, is essentially the unique theory of productivity in labor (which, admittedly, is very intelligent), the equation for what is known as product purchasing parity, some comments on Peel's Act which undoubtedly most economists would agree on, and 300 pages of what is essentially Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus over and over again. Say also, but not as much as those first two.

>>2135932
Keynes is still largely misunderstood by Austrian retards who think his thought is refuted by "HURR DIGGING HOLES TO FILL THEM AGAIN" and "HURR BROKEN WINDOWS" and retards like Paul "HURR 9/11 GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY" Krugman.

He is still the most important economist of the century and you'd have to be literally retarded who learnt "economics" from 6-minute Youtube videos not to recognize the value and relevancy of his theories yet.

>economics

A scam to keep kike-er I mean capitalism running

>>2136004
Ironically, the one thing about Austrian economics and Keynesian economics that is similar is they deal extensively through theories of the function of money. Whereas Keynes looks at Employment as a means of determining prices and a lot of the other items of his framework, Von Mises would use the very monetary unit, and it's marginal use-value to determine the prices of goods being offered in the market.

They have one major thing in common: they reject the basic, invisible hand theory of Adam Smith as regards supply and demand of employment and interest.

Can some explain the differences between Keynesianism, neokeynesian, new keynesian, post keynesian, classical, neoclassical, new classical, neoclassical synthesis, and new neoclassical syntheses economics?

>>2136848
People have. Read the thread. It's not exactly simple. Economics isn't simple.

File: graph.jpg (199KB, 1390x645px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1390x645px

>>2136848
I will say this though: it seems neoclassical is just broadly defined as Classical economic concepts applied statistically through complex functions and calculus concepts, like this picture of Irving Fisher's collection of Price change rate data sets. The standard deviation of the data ranges increases as you go up in the data set, because the average gets lower, diluting that one spike in price growth.

The two lines are interest and the rate of price change over time. They are very closely correlated.

>>2136907
I did read the thread, half of those aren't mentioned. Also, if you cant explain something simply, you don't really understand it