Does any economist even come close?? >agrees with Irving

Friedrich List.

>>2281299
>Does any economist even come close?
Close to what? If you mean, "close to Keynes", then that is really subject to interpretation.
If you mean, "close to the truth", then the answer is a most definite no.

Economics is the attempt to study something subjective through objective means. It is like trying to study the ocean by watching the light reflecting off the surface of the water.

Objective information is superficial. It only exists at face value. Economics is much deeper than science. The movement of the human spirit cannot be quantified in any objective way - because it is not objective reasons that move people to do something, but subjective reasons.

The classical liberal appeal to the "free hand of the market" is an admission that they do not understand the forces at work. They cannot define or quantify this "free hand", this god-like entity, but then they try to define or quantify its outputs or the result of its work.

Economics is a pseudo-science, in that the parameters of the system do not even come close to encapsulating that which it attempts to quantify. Someone who read and analyzed historical accounts would have a better grasp of "economics" than those called "economists".

>>2281334
So you're basically creating an academic branch of thought war out of thin air?

I don't read history, haven't for a year. I'm not fighting this stupid war with you.

>>2281334
That's not specifically true anyway. Your argument, and you've said it before, that economics is simply the task of trying to predict future outcomes based on the past being wrong, is wrong.

Case in point: future interest variations can be predicted, and high levels of inflation mandated by lowering interest rates are reflected in the lower pricing of pieces of equipment due to their lowering marginal efficiency of capital.

>>2281299
Objectively, independent of any political influence, perhaps Adam Smith or some such rivals his influence on the discipline. He's definitely very close to the top.

Subjectively: Nobody. The death of postwar Keynesianism was perhaps a greater tragedy for the west than both world wars combined.

File: 1485464634296.jpg (249KB, 656x885px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 656x885px

Ricardo
Marx

>>2281334
>you can't study language as its an art and humanities, therefore its subjective

>>2282446
Marx correctly described the problems of capitalism but that's pretty much it. Everything else including his explanation for why capitalism is bad is full retard tier.

Friedman

>>2282526
>is full retard tier.

like what

>>2282542
Reminder that Chile only returned to growth after Friedmanites were booted out.
The 1982 crisis would have killed Chile if not for the fact they failed to privatise CODELCO, and recovery only began after state intervention exceeded the levels seen when Alende was in power.

Such a shame we didn't take the same lesson.

>>2282446
Marx wasn't an economist really

>>2282892
1982 crisis wouldn't have been nearly as bad if they had a free floating currency
>Leftists blown the fuck out
>Friedman wins again

File: friedman.jpg (14KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 350x500px

This sexy mofo

>>2282550
We're being exploited based off a shitty theory of price that hasn't been relevant since 1870

Not Marx's fault, his beliefs just don't translate well

>'For my own part I am now somewhat sceptical of the success of a merely monetary policy directed towards influencing the rate of interest. I expect to see the State, which is in a position to calculate the marginal efficiency of capital-goods on long views and on the basis of the general social advantage, taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment; since it seems likely that the fluctuations in the market estimation of the marginal efficiency of different types of capital, calculated on the principles I have described above, will be too great to be offset by any practicable changes in the rate of interest'

AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS BTFO'd

Because you see, Austrian economics relies on the principle of the State regulating the interest rate to manipulate the value of currency instead of paying attention to any marginal efficiency of capital or investment curves like Keynes. And he just said fuck that shit basically.

Also there's somewhere in The General Theory where he basically says 'Yeah, I don't think the definition of the term 'Production Cycle' is properly defined in Austrian economics.