Is the Austrian School the best school of economic thought?

>>320450
Yes because the school of economic thought that's grounded in reality, rather than ideal.

File: 985d6c2217e1c30cce5109d95aa020c279d1015c094923e2043c97e19e51af46_1.jpg (64KB, 433x502px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 433x502px

yes

>>320450
no

>>320499
I've always really disliked this image. For the Marxist economics part, if it's so obviously shit then why not pick an actual passage out of it that displays this? There's bound to be something that fits the criteria.

>>320675
That may be difficult because Marxism is not always internally inconsistent. The problem is that is starts from false premises.

File: phossyjaw.jpg (41KB, 300x264px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 300x264px

>>320450
No, it's considered a fringe theory for a reason namely the fact that it's not founded on solid historical precedents.

For decades Albright and Wilson made White Phosphorous matches. Matches that did not use White Phosphorous were among the first mechanically produced goods ever made but White Phosphorous wore out expensive machines, as such they had matches made by hand which lead to workers ingesting the stuff, having their jaws dissolve and once they were too sick to work firing them so that they would die in agony on the streets and replace them with fresh workers who would suffer the same fate. This was well documented and they're were both boycotts and the salvation army making red phosphorus matches which worked just as well but did not maim people (if being more expensive) specifically aiming to drive them under, none of that worked. What did work was when the government intervened and stopped that practice.

>>320739
>The problem is that is starts from false premises.

That's pretty much any ideology. You've got to be willing to take a logical leap that a certain thing is inherently good from which everything else stems from for an ideology to work.

Also how isn't Marxism not internally consistent? It's an anti-individualist materialist ideology and sticks to that premise pretty well.

>>320675
It's an inflammatory strawman, what do you expect?

>>320756
An actual quote. Surely they could at least cherrypick something out of context.

>>320754
I said it's not always internally inconsistent. Bad phrasing on my part.

But the false idea Marx started with was the LTV, his own version, as opposed to say Ricardo's.

>>320499
>>320739
That Austrian School quote is also based on the faulty premise that profitability naturally flows into higher wages for every employee.

Looking at any current major firm outside of Silicon Valley disproves that.

Ideology-driven economics is stupid anyways. Sometimes you're fiddling too much, other times there's something broken that the market won't fix on its own or can't fix in time. Options to enforce stability are best.

>>320791
profitability has lead to higher wages. the rising wages are just not in the western anymore.

>>320791
It's difficult to not economize ideologically because we are ideological creatures and economics has political implications. Not to mention that people get very emotional over economic matters. The most heated threads here and (previously on /lit/) are capitalism vs. socialism threads.

>>320791
As an outsider to economics, the field looks riddled with apologetics and ideologues looking to either bolster or discredit a specific ideology.

File: krugman is a dummy.jpg (77KB, 512x683px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 512x683px

>>320830
Pretty much.

File: buchanan_postcard.jpg (64KB, 280x396px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 280x396px

>>320450
Public Choice school, friend. Although it has partial Austrian origins so I'm not going to shit on the Austrians.

>>320818
Mostly because people are just being obstinate about stupid shit. There's nothing inherent about the government OR a private enterprise that makes it incapable of doing something well or poorly.

The answer to every long-term economic problem isn't smaller or bigger, it's better. Even Marxism could theoretically work if you had Platonic Philosopher Kings in charge. That's so improbable it's essentially impossible, but not actually impossible.

Chicago monetarists > Keynesian > Austrian >>>>> Marxist

File: leftists2.jpg (58KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 850x400px

It is indeed.

Leftists on suicide watch.

File: marx.png (69KB, 369x364px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 369x364px

>>321054
>Even Marxism could theoretically work if you had Platonic Philosopher Kings in charge.

We tried that.

File: bara3.jpg (418KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 768x768px

>>321070
>keynesian

JUST

>>321094
As much as I dislike it, it's actual economics unlike Austrian which is just dumb ass philosophy. And considering its poster children are memesters like Lew Rockwell, Gary North and Peter Schitt, it doesn't give me much of a serious vibe.

>>320841

I'm pretty sure Krugman's stupid ass has driven more people away from Keynesian policies than towards them.

Why people pay so little attention to the German schools of economics? They seen to make a good job at Germanic-speaking countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_school_of_economics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg_school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

File: ck.jpg (548KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1600x1067px

>>321103
>Keynesians

>>321128
I am not advocating Keynesianism, calm your tits.

File: US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png (216KB, 2680x1780px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 2680x1780px

>>320811
Yeah, nah

File: Sowell.png (120KB, 304x323px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 304x323px

>>321182
>household income

Everytime.

File: 042812krugman2-blog480.jpg (35KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x336px

>>321228
There are loads of charts like this.

File: ludwig-von-mises.jpg (60KB, 472x473px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 472x473px

>>321228
Ayy. Was just about to jump in with this.

>>320450
Only absolutely retards are austrian. Any school of thought that blatantly ignores empirical evidence for praxeology can't be accepted.

>>321245
But that chart has different implications than the first chart. Just because wages have been rising with productivity doesn't mean they have to rise just as much as it.

>>321182
Learn about compensation. Learn about wages vs. hours worked. We need less uninformed drivel like this.

>>321262
Austrian methodology is limited, sure, but its mainstream policy suggestions are often correct.

If economics were music, Chicago school would be Bach, Keynesianism would be Justin Bieber and Austrians would be ICP.

It's no surprise that many /pol/acks are fans of Austrian.

>>321263
Well the first guy argued that greater profitability didn't necessarily lead to higher wages. I was backing him up with these charts, where you can see productivity never falls but over some ~5 year periods median wages fall.

>>321272
Like? I'm not going to go into every detail on here but it consistently flies in the face of all the experts even in similarly "conservative" schools and the IGM panel and every major journal and has a horrible track record.

Its policy suggestions are often the exact opposite of what econometrics suggest.

>>321296
Austrian is a cult, it's not an actual school. I mean they promote legit con artists / morons like Peter Schiff, it's a fucking joke.

>>321298
Ok, you're confusing wages with income or compensation. Wages are doing fine. You don't see the flattening you see on those charts.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AHETPI

What really is happening is more noticiable when you see this.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AWHNONAG

People just aren't working as much. We need to focus our policies on getting companies and people together on working more hours.

>>321296
>>321307
The attacks on Krugman et al are kind of hilarious. It's obvious they get into economics to try and justify their free-market fundamentalism and then find all the big-names saying no that's actually bullshit and they can't handle it and resort to name calling.

As far as I can tell austrians say 'economic models are too hard so lower taxes I guess'
It really doesn't help that I've never met an austrian who could give me a better definition

File: 21.jpg (26KB, 633x475px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 633x475px

>>321228

>>321307
Yeah, which makes sense that /pol/acks would be into it. The biggest trend I see with them and amateur internet historians/political people in general is separating bullshit from fact.

>>321333
Economic models are hard. Its hard for me to not sympathize with them because empirical evidence is REALLY hard to get in this field. And statistical grouping is hell to deal with.

But I think we're making more progress and learning more about markets and money than austrians for sure.

>>321333
>>321362
It's not that economic models are 'too hard', it's just that they're an abstraction from what economic actors know in reality.

No person knows what a full supply and/or demand curve looks like for any market. They don't even know what the equilibrium price and quantity is until it's reached. It's the same as why firms don't actually produce at MC = MR because it's very hard for them to exactly determine where that is.

>>321362
>people shit on Austrian Economics.
>I go to one of the few schools that actually teaches it properly
PERFECT MARKET PREDICTION FAGS GET OUT REEEEEE
KNOWLEDGE IS SHARED.

>>321307
I listened to a debate between Schiff and a Marxist once. It was over whether Capitalism is good or not. I'm not a Marxist but the guy argued very strongly. Eventually Schiff admitted openly that the problem was not Capitalism ... but democracy. His argument for this? Democracy undermines Capitalism.

Circular reasoning, Capitalism as tyranny, and love for tyranny all in one go.

>>321410
All models are abstractions of reality, and they can sometimes make very ridiculous assumptions but that certainly doesn't completely negate their importance. Newtonian physics, for example, was basically the science of being 'close enough'

>>321410
>you could be a brain in a vat so thinking is pointless

>>321410
Everything is. There's a big saying in all scientific fields. We can never know if anything is true we just know it works. Austrian school doesn't really work.

>>321411
go on. I'm interested.

>>321319
In a very simplistic example, a bakery pays a baker $100 a week to make a loaf of bread sold for $5, on which it makes $1 of profit. if the worker gets a 10% raise to $110, but the company starts charging $7 for a loaf (with $2 profit, a 100% increase), the worker is actually worse off as a loaf of bread costs 6% of his wage now rather than 5%.

Of course that example is flawed, but it's an imaginary scenario just to show rising profits does not always mean higher real wage (if you're just talking nominal values that's kind of pointless).


>working more hours

Oh come on workers aren't machines they need a healthy life balance. There's talk around that the working week is still too long.

>>321434
>>321435
I'm not going to shit on anyone for trying to validate models, but as they are taught today they imply that you can figure out market specifics acurately which to me seems false.

>>321319
>People just aren't working as much. We need to focus our policies on getting companies and people together on working more hours.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jeb Bush say this and a shit load of economists came out and officially declared him a retard?

File: schiff7.png (35KB, 858x431px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 858x431px

>>321424
It's not even that. Schiff had one really accurate prediction, the burst of the housing bubble. Since then he's been drummed up to be the economic Nostradamus by Austrian fanboys who think he's some kind of infallible predictor who can't be wrong, completely glossing over the fact like 80% of his predictions turned out to be absolute horseshit.

Dude owns an investment firm (Europacific capital) and his constant appearances in the media is nothing but PR for him, meanwhile his clients get duped into losing a shitload of money.

>>321452
Of course higher profits do not always mean higher wages, but higher productivity usually does.

>>321464
Schiff is more of a political figure than an economic figure.

Obviously you'd have to be stupid to be an Austrian and follow people for predicitons. One of the implications of Austrian theory is that economists are only very rarely right about predictions that they make.

>>321466
How so? Iirc productivity is just revenue per hours worked and fluctuations in revenue could easily be the source of productivity increases

>>321477
Austrianism is like meta-economics
They admit they'll be wrong and by being wrong, they're right

>>321452
Real compensation is rising faster than cost of living actually.

I should rephrase it. We are working too little hours to support our increases in cost of living. We need to lower our cost of living or increase hours. But that's the biggest issue I see.

>>321459
Yeah, but IIRC it was about that really. Americans are working fine hours. But our cost of living is rising faster than that. We used to work an overly large number of hours to support a household. Now we don't have to because multi-worker households.

>>321485
You misinterpreted what I said. It's not that economist are almost always wrong about everything, it's that economists are almost always wrong when they make predictions.

>>321507
compensation divided by hours I mean

File: Hegel_portrait_by_Schlesinger_1831.jpg (181KB, 452x572px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 452x572px

Wikipedia says:
>The Austrian School is a school of economic thought that is based on the concept of methodological individualism – that social phenomena result from the motivations and actions of individuals.[1][2][3][4]

I already think it's dumb.

>>321466
One example I can think of (and is actually happening to a certain extent at the moment) is a company that lays off full time staff and replaces them with part-time/casual staff. The company can use these people more efficiently, but they will be getting paid less than the full time worker per year, and even if they get more an hour than the full time worker, they are still worse off.

Overall the economy is better off though because profits and productivity rise.

That's one of the reasons for >>321507
and his weird obsession with the working week.

There's diminishing returns here, you can't just assume there's always work for these people to do, they need breaks as well and their work efficiency falls the longer they have to work.

File: Hegel.jpg (309KB, 1584x1089px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1584x1089px

>>321515
>muh history

>>321522
>weird obsession with the working week
I would love to have less hours. And the idea that we lose efficiency in higher hours is obviously true and companies shouldn't hire for more because of this right now.

Its just that the lower hours worked is most likely what is to blame for the stagnating yearly income along with using more non-monetary compensations.

>>321084
I'm not saying "Marxism hasn't ever been tried", I'm saying that it could theoretically work if you actually had magnanimous, intelligent, and devoted people in charge. Nearly impossible, but still technically possible.

>>321566
In other words it would work if God ruled the Earth in person.

>>320450
If the Austrian school is so good, why is America the dominant global economic power and not Austria?

kekmate, austria-fags

>>321579
God could supply the post scarcity too

I think you're on to something

>>321566
Everyone in the society would have to be like that. Even then you run into the fact that economic calculation is impossible under socialism.

File: 169.gif (92KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 300x100px

>>321588
How could you be so ignorant to historical circumstance on a history board?
Nobody listen to this guy plz

File: cheer up lad.jpg (106KB, 728x461px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 728x461px

>>321630
How can you be so blind to shitposting on 4chan?

>>320450

As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify through empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), it is generally considered to be a heterodox approach or outright pseudoscience. Austrian arguments as to why statistical methods cannot adequately describe human behavior can seem intuitively compelling, but they fail to provide the mathematical proof demonstrating why normally unbiased estimates suddenly become biased simply because they are dealing with people who make decisions. In this sense, the Austrian school is to economics as a certain other Austrian school was to psychology. Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding, and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs.

Can we take anything positive from it? Well, to start, its use can be found in no economy in the world... except Somalia.

"Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts" - Ludwig Von Mises, patron saint of libertarians

The Austrian School as it's known today is primarily a small group of cranks funded by even richer cranks through the von Mises Institute looking for self-serving rationalizations couched in the form of economic theory.

>>321639
RIP Tom Cruise Heidecker

File: communist.jpg (61KB, 357x538px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 357x538px

>>321640

>>320811
what if they, you know, DON'T increase wages.

I mean they are not forced to and employees are not machines their lower their output when the wages are not increased proportional to profit. Since they won't see the numbers any time soon it will take a really big gap between the wages and standard of living (not profitability) to figure out something is wrong. Even more so if their livelihood maintain solely by the wages they are given. Unless you are talking about the big names, then their wages do increase by the fact they know better and are much closer to the one getting the profit.

>>321759
When a company makes more money they are likely going to use that money to bid for more workers by offering higher pay. Labor is a scarce resource like everything else. There are never enough workers.

>>321794
There are a laundry list on non economic reasons why a person may choose a specific job over another.
>there are never enough workers
?????

>>321794
That would work if expertise skill is needed.

but in cases were it isn't (like a factory) they don't have to increase the wages rather just reach out to people willing to get whatever wages there is. You'll spend probably more money on trying to recruit them (and even more on the maintenance and improvements of the machines) than increasing their wages and will probably be more profitable doing it.

>>321818
>non economic reasons
>non economic reasons means not money

Even subjective valuations are a part of economic choices.

>there are never enough workers

The entire problem of economics is that resources are scarce. This includes labor.

>>321821
The idea would be to bid workers away from other factories.

>>321864
That situation would only exist in a world where unemployment doesn't exist.

Even if you were big enemies they would attack them in the stock market or take away their consumer base first.

>>321884
The point is to get experienced factory workers. Sure, you may or might get other sorts of workers, but I didn't mean that the point was to throw an offer out there to whoever is "willing to get whatever wages there [are]."

>>321717
>criticizes Austrian school
>MUST BE A COMMUNIST

Actually Austrians and Marxists show the same dogmatic ideological indoctrination.

>>321640
Somalia is very Keysianian on a micro-scale.

>>321928
and again "experienced workers" only matter when said experience can boost profitability by a significant amount. but in repetitive work all it needs is quantity of workers not quality.

profitability is more gained through the quality of the machines, manufacturing method, and marketing than the workers themselves.

>>321979
>in repetitive work all it needs is quantity of workers not quality

Repetitive tasks, especially the sort done on fast moving assembly lines, are not tasks anyone can just walk in and do. More experienced workers make less mistakes which means the lines get stopped less. This is especially important in things like distribution centers.

>>322015
They'll make less mistakes but if the the number of mistakes between the inexperienced and the experienced worker is not enough to effect profit then it wouldn't exactly matter.

Oh and if a person of quality does work in the factory the only assurance is that he will have a better chance of working than the average street guy.

He might get a better wage as per his quality but chances are the one before the guy will not get a raise or any wage increase and that it'll only be just him, even if the previous worker calls him out they'll answer with the logical "better worker, better wages" even if the previous worker is just as if not more experienced due to the years he/she spent in the factory.

so in a way wages increase, but only for certain people

>>322029
>They'll make less mistakes but if the the number of mistakes between the inexperienced and the experienced worker is not enough to effect profit then it wouldn't exactly matter.

I implied it would. It may not, yes.

>so in a way wages increase, but only for certain people

Wages increase nonetheless. This is of course not the only way wages increase.

>>322045
but it's usually the way it does and it's kinda misleading to say "WAGES WILL INCREASE IF BUSINESSES ARE RICH!" with people in low ends of livelihood expecting their standards of living will increase with the rise of businesses but turns out it probably isn't.

Now there are many economic factors that may allow wages to increase for them but most of the times between giving your employees more money and keeping it all for yourself (probably for good reason, probably not) I myself will probably find ways to get the latter in play.

>>322072
You don't seem very versed in economics.

Living standards are not just about wages, it also has to do with the cheapness of goods, which is supposed to be driven down by competition (and which are first subsidized by upper classes).

And businesses aren't just two-dimensional worker and employee situations. Employers may want to invest money in capital goods or advertising. Growing their business is how they are able to "give themself a raise".

>>321439
I'm a freshman.
Haven't taken anything other than sitting in on a your of the school.
Dude was talking about how Socialists will accuse companies who diversify their product (color, size, utility, etc.) as monopolizing the industry. Also showed me the point of
The PRICE of an item represents KNOWLEDGE of that item. The problem is its not one person, or one group, no, it's everyone's knowledge, and lack thereof that is included in this.
He goes on to talk about the problem with the socialists is they assume, with a perfect competition model, they can predict perfect market outcomes and those are what's supposed to happen; or else it's a market failure and the government needs to step in.
So basically, if it doesn't fit the model, the market is failing; not the model is wrong.
The problem now, is that the government has adopted these models, and set up tons of government enforced monopolies. Not only because they say the market failed (therfore let's take away all competition or all chance for the market to recover[fuck you FDR]) but it's also quite to their benifit to prop those companies up (wink wink).

>>321946
Actually, you're just making rash generalizations.

My problem with all economic theories from the rightist of Lassie-faire to the lefts of Marxism is that it always have the assumption that people both know of the economic logic of their ideals and follow them to a T.

The majority of people don't know shit about money, economics, or even personal finance just as long as they have money they don't care about how it flows around (they have other things to deal with most of the time).

The guys who run the economies got to that point by doing the things no one else would do, this includes "things no one would do because it defies all logic and common sense" if there's an economic rule chances are the companies will try to break that rule, it's usually the only way to get money.

Even middle of the road people like me that know economics but aren't smart enough to run a business would rather yell at people on 4chan than to go to the grocery store I work at and demand the financial data it has and compare it to my wages.

and the government knows jackshit about the micro-economics and mostly is focused on military endeavors and maintaining order than things like "profit"

really the only economic theory I can respect is fascism. since it carves out an exclusive club of "chosen people" that you can apply arbitrary rules to and the said chosen are motivated to both maximize profit and social prosperity.

>>322101
But this topic was about living wages. The pic is about the rising of wages and it implies that it will automatically increase with the company (it will but more for college grads, fellow CEOs, guys that came in later, etc). We could talk about other factors of living standards but that would put this discussion off-topic.

File: 1419375433971.png (831KB, 443x429px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 443x429px

>>322124
What the fuck am I reading?

>>322142
Is that Ham King?

File: 1416448650054.gif (2MB, 330x331px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x331px

>>322138
Ok.

File: top hayek.png (320KB, 933x703px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 933x703px

>collectivism
>2015

File: negro what.jpg (15KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x300px

>living wage

I hate this meme

>>322138
I prefer the term Infantilism

File: Sowell spurdo.png (81KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x509px

>>322173
>mfw household income meme
>mfw social justice meme

>>322194
Wasn't Adam Smith a SJW?

File: pure ideology.gif (937KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 500x300px

>>322203
>social justice
>a thing in the 1700s

>>322167
>>322192
But even if I do argue you'll just find some other grip to latch on to until the argument has nothing to do with the original topic (pretty much how most 4chan arguments go).

I mean that system will work for me the suburban guy with the college degree but I'm pretty sure the wages won't increase for most people no matter how larger the company goes (unless it's part of the company's plan, the company does it for good of heart, the worker is on the higher-ups good side, or the government will fuck them over if they don't).

File: 1448333275092.gif (505KB, 400x406px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 400x406px

>>322224
No. Wages increase with productivity. Productivity can be increased for low level factory jobs by investment in capital goods.

>>322241
Second sentence is not worth saying because we both agree without question.

My argument is that the first sentence is true too but not for all or even most people.

>>322218
Adam Smith advocated universal education, and promoted his vision of capitalism because he thought it would better redistribute wealth to the common people from the hands of greedy monopolists and business owners.

>>322258
Who else are we talking about then?

File: 1394489002483.gif (1MB, 311x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 311x240px

>>320450
>praxeology

>>322264
Government monopolies.

I'm fine with those two points.

>>322241
>No. Wages increase with productivity.

Not him, but lel, no they don't, not automatically at least. There's nothing that forces a factory owner or capitalist in general to pay his workers more, even if he makes more money.

File: nick-young-confused-face.jpg (38KB, 505x431px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 505x431px

>As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period.

>>322267
You were talking about the quality workers that that the businesses will probably hire in a higher wage that reflects their quality.

I'm talking about the bulk of workers that were either hired before the productivity rise or after but they just weren't of the same level of societal quality (so they're screwed). Most companies will recruit from immigration, outsourcing, newly parents that lack the money to raise their child, and people that just don't have much going for them or are ignorant of basic economic or financial logic so the company doesn't have to do anything to their wages for their efficiency no matter the economic circumstance.

>>322293
name a revolution without a dictatorship

inb4 American revolution (that was more of a war of independence).

>>322290
Capitalists are not isolated actors who can do whatever. You need to understand that first off.

>>321073
HO
LY

FUCK

based black economics man
I'm going to print this out and put it on my fucking wall

>>322272
Adam Smith was 100% in support of government regulation that benefited the normal person. This isn't a re-reading or re-interpretation of what he said. It's straight up his opinion on the matter. He lived in a time where the government was easily corruptible by wealth.

>When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.

He was also in support of the "living wage" if you're willing to define "living wage" as being able to afford tolerable living conditions.

>No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.

>>322293
I'll be devil's advocate here, and say that he might be right in a sense.

If you have a figure like Napoleon, who was by all accounts a dictator, spreading the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Europe, and thus inculcating a culture comprised of those ideals, he was in a way "preparing" Europe to function with liberal capitalist democracy.

>>322304
>Capitalists are not isolated actors who can do whatever

I didn't say they could do whatever. I said they could decide what they payed their own workers regardless of how productive their business was.

>>322293
>>322293

Dictatorship is pretty much the only way you could save Greece at this point

>>322303
any anarchist revolution or revolution of libertarian character
>inb4 "the CNT joined the government to exercise power over the workers it totally wasn't to defend the revolution from the communist party"
it's funny how both memes, Marxism and Capitalism, are pretty much exactly the same when you get down to it; they both want to make you a serf.

>>322296
>people that just don't have much going for them or are ignorant of basic economic or financial logic so the company doesn't have to do anything to their wages for their efficiency no matter the economic circumstance.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? I honestly think you should study some economics and then come back.

>>322306
Sure. But none of this means what you probably think it means.

>>322317
>I said they could decide what they payed their own workers regardless of how productive their business was.

Again, this is not in a vacuum. Economics is about tendencies.

>>322335
>But none of this means what you probably think it means.
You sound like one of those people that takes Adam Smith, the "free market" and "invisible hand" out of context, and uses those terms to validate deregulated capitalism.

>>322328
>What in the world is that supposed to mean?

There's a carrot (hiring better quality workers), but no stick. So there's no real problem for the company if they don't increase wages.

>>320453
Perfect bait, 10/10.

>>322344
I don't. My point is that legislation intended to help the poor, workers, etc. is not always, and usually is not beneficial for them. His point doesn't necessarily justify dictatorial labor unions and so on.

>>322340
I'm not talking about economics in the grand sense. I am talking about the ability and power of a business owner to pay his employees what he wants. This is a necessary and undeniable power that comes with the ability to own private property.

Is this really that hard to understand?

>>322368
Right. But his actions are limited by the market.

>>322290
>There's nothing that forces a factory owner or capitalist in general to pay his workers more, even if he makes more money.
Yes it is, it's called competition. Nobody is gonna work for your sorry ass if your competitor offers twice the pay, so wages have to follow productivity in some measure.

>>322346
They may have to increase wages due to competition.

>>322363
Since I never mentioned those things, how could you infer that those quotes don't think what I think they mean?

Contradicting in such a way implies you took issue with one of the ways I interpreted quotes, not you going off the deep end of strawman arguments.

How can one even conflate "dictatorial labor unions" as regulation in support of the worker or the living wage? Also not, you're not just talking about organized labor in general, but a very specific, unregulated kind of union behavior that is "dictatorial"

It seems more like your intent was to be dismissive without supporting, or even limiting the arguments you make.

>>322391
again competition is mostly towards consumers than workers

most workers probably won't know that company A has more wages than company B (unless they are really in the know-how meaning they were better off to begin with).

>>322379
In what way?

>>322384
Right, but that would be one of the few things that are realistic.

In most countries though, it doesn't function that way entirely. There is a reason everyone flees to the West in order to live a better life, and that's not only because we are rich, it's also because we have wage laws, health and safety regulation, and union representation.

>>322384
No competitor is going to offer twice the pay if there is a surplus of labor, and increased productivity means you can accomplish the same or more with fewer workers, increasing the surplus of laborers.

>>322401
That's not hard to figure out. Especially with the internet.

>>322400
>Since I never mentioned those things, how could you infer that those quotes don't think what I think they mean?

I did not infer. I guessed.

>unregulated kind of union behavior that is "dictatorial"

Governments can give labor unions legal power.

>>322407
Does America have wage laws? It's still the western country that attracts the most immigrants, I'm pretty sure wage laws aren't very high in the list of reasons.

>>322410
No, the existence of unemployment doesn't suddenly stop hiring competition from existing, it just pulls salaries down, but they are still scaled on productivity.

>>322407
>wage laws, health and safety regulation, and union representation.

I am pretty sure immigrants aren't worried very much about bullshit like that. It's all about employment opportunity, which all of those things destroy.

>>322435
The only reason wages are so high is BECAUSE of the federal minimum wage.
60% of our budget goes to social welfare.
Our true unemployment rate is nearing 25%
I have no fucking clue why we haven't collapsed yet.
Sheer military might?

>>322434
>I did not infer. I guessed.
So you made a dismissive statement based entirely on a guess of a strawman argument? And then you don't actually even give the strawman until asked for it, but skip straight to being dismissive? That's even weaker than to infer. At least by inferring, you could claim that you had some sort of logical reasoning.

>Governments can give labor unions legal power.
Governments can give private entities monopolies too, what's your point? Governments can do lots of things. The only specific argument you presented was "dictatorial labor unions." Not organized labor in general, but "dictatorial" ones, and even that is needlessly vague.

File: 1438646663239.jpg (22KB, 265x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 265x300px

>>322461
>The only reason wages are so high is BECAUSE of the federal minimum wage.

>>322450
>It's all about employment opportunity, which all of those things destroy.

Well it's two-sides to the same coin to be honest, because yes, if you have too much regulation, there will be less innovation and productivity, but on the other hand if you have zero regulation, people are literally the pawns of their capitalist overlord, and can be fired any time, which isn't exactly a fun experience.

Employment opportunity might be what people are looking for, but if it is, it's stable opportunity.

>>322303

>inb4 American revolution (that was more of a war of independence).

It was both, numb nuts.

>>321333
What is the Chicago school of economics? I've heard of Austrian & keynesian before, but this is the first time I've heard of Chicago

>>322470
By that I mean a 7.50 wage is pretty fucking high for our unemployment and the number of illegal and foreign unskilled laborers we have.

It should be lower, for a class of workers getting experience (teens) and a second bracket for trained individuals.

I would say no minimum wage but America would have to revert to early 1800s public policies for that to work.

>>322435
>No, the existence of unemployment doesn't suddenly stop hiring competition from existing, it just pulls salaries down, but they are still scaled on productivity.
No, it's scaled on supply and demand of labor.

>>322477
The guys that caused 2008

>>322468
How could I infer without evidence that which I guessed upon?

>Governments can give private entities monopolies too, what's your point? Governments can do lots of things. The only specific argument you presented was "dictatorial labor unions." Not organized labor in general, but "dictatorial" ones, and even that is needlessly vague.

That was not an argument. It was an example. I'm not even arguing with you. I was and still am looking to see if there is even something to argue with you about.

>>322480
Uh, it's provably not, otherwise the salary would simply follow the employment rate, which it obviously doesn't.

>>322475
Capitalists are pawns of the consumer. They cannot just do whatever as they exist in a competitive market.

>>322491
The problem is the government destroys the competitive market, because they say it is failing.
>>322106

>>322476
name 1 revolutionary thing about it

they didn't even change their damn government

>>322491
Money-wise yes. But in a completely laissez-faire economy, the only thing that will make them behave in a certain way, is simply supply and demand, and not social mores, morality, or ethics.

A capitalist has no reason to treat anyone nicely, because he's just after profit. In a system where people can just be replaced for no reason whatsoever, people will not be efficient workers.

>>322496
Exactly.

>>322479
But then businesses are created that solely take advantage of the fact that there is cheap child labor and rely on it to stay profitable. Then these businesses can out compete business models that would account for the fact that employees aren't supported by their parents. So you kill some number of real jobs and replace them with training jobs.

But immigrants are a problem when their dependents are in another country, money leaves the country, and their living wage including dependents is much lower than a family living in America. They also lower the expected standard of living because it's being compared to a shithole, so almost anything is better.

>>322490
There's still subdivisions of the labor market. A farmhand is not a rocket scientist. And at a certain point a rocket scientist will give up rocket science for something else they're qualified for if the pay drops too low.

>>322488
So you didn't even have an argument. You just wanted to be plain dismissive when you said.

>Sure. But none of this means what you probably think it means.

>>322491
It's a two way street. The question is which side has more leverage to turn the transaction in their favor?

The answer is usually the side with more means, and better consolidated and unified power.

File: 1423008437350.png (224KB, 362x454px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 362x454px

>>322502
>the only thing that will make them behave in a certain way, is simply supply and demand, and not social mores, morality, or ethics.

Just what do you propose they should do? Can the government make people "ethical"?

>A capitalist has no reason to treat anyone nicely, because he's just after profit.

He has all the reason in the world. He needs his employees to be productive and more fundamentally, stay with him. And there's no way he could be mean towards the consumer.

>In a system where people can just be replaced for no reason whatsoever, people will not be efficient workers.

The capitalist is, as you said, after a profit. He does not do things for no reason whatsoever.

>>322523
Yes.

>>322518
Everyone is paid more today than a 100 years ago, not just rocket scientists, and yet the unemployment rate is higher.Productivity obviously drives labour demand.

>>322496
There's a lot of shit regulation out there because of the piecemeal way of getting bills passed, compromises and band-aid fixes. It's also a fact there is anti-competitive behavior, or behavior that isn't fair competition that needs regulation to protect competitiveness needed in a competitive market.

>>322527
>Just what do you propose they should do? Can the government make people "ethical"?

No, but it can make sure people don't get fired for no reason.

>He needs his employees to be productive and more fundamentally, stay with him.

Yes, but a worker needs a capitalist in a laissez-faire economy more than a capitalist needs a specific worker. The human element is completely removed. The capitalist needs "a worker" not "a person".

He would literally fire everyone in his factory if he knew it would make him more money, regardless of who they were, and their situation in life, because there are 500 new workers willing to work for shittier wages and conditions than the current hypothetical ones.

>>322543
This raises so many questions. What is a legetimate reason to fire? Union laws now make it difficult to fire someone even if they fail their duties or are chronically late/absent.

That is quite the hypothetical scenario by the way.

>>322573
>Union laws now make it difficult to fire someone even if they fail their duties or are chronically late/absent.

And? This is way better than it used to be. At least now the worker has some recourse towards the power of the capitalist, who, if you didn't know, usually manipulates the State to work for him, in different ways.

Like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

>>322573
>union laws
That's a union policy to stand in solidarity with that worker. It's entirely up to the union to adopt that policy. You don't fire them because the union will strike.

>>322594
I am not appealing to the past. I am pointing out a current ptoblem. Otherwise I agree with you, but don't throw around the word power so easily.

>>322617
Look, I agree with you that too much regulation is retarded, because it not only stunts the growth of the general economy at large, but it makes it harder for new businesses to start up.

But I no longer agree, that the cure is some Ayn Randian fantasy-land.

>>322601
The state can give that policy legal weight. Our union problems could be solved if the state did not require workers to join them.

>>322625
I agree with all of that.

>>322637
You do realize union members can vote right?

>>322652
Yes.

Lol no. Neoliberal scum can fuck off, thanks to them economic development has slowed down globally since the 1980s. Best economics are fascist or state capitalist, like Japanese or South Korean ones.

>>322658
Union laws protect worker's rights to organize. It's up to the workers how they want to organize.

You make it sound like government law makes it so unions must prevent the firing of a derelict employee.

>>322659
Most Western European countries can be classified as state capitalist though, at least the Nordic ones.

Many of the European states have large market shares in a lot of private businesses.

>>322662
Union policies can be enforced legally. The government grants them the right to enforce asinine policies.

The strangest thing about the Austrian School to me is how strong its presence is on the internet when offline people rarely talk about it. Looking into economics has made me realize how little people talk about the field as a whole. On the internet if its not Keynesian (sub types are never mentioned), Austrian, or connected to some major figure like Sowell or Krugman it goes unmentioned in most conversations.

>>322691
Because the internet and self-educating culture attaches itself to easy to search and identify things.

>>322684
>Union policies can be enforced legally.
This is the worker's right to organize. You make it sound like most of the time unions will protect a derelict employee. It's just the case that such cases make news headlines when it does happen. That or an employer whining that they don't want to go through the union in order to fire someone.

>The government grants them the right to enforce asinine policies.
And an employer can participate in nepotism too.

>>322691
This is not really surprising m8.

Every single ideal or worldview that is not held by a majority of people finds more life on the internet, because the internet is more or less anonymous. The idea that you can discuss something and agree with shit without having to pay the social costs of doing so, makes minority views on certain topics flourish more than in real life.

>>322693
>>322691
I always associated the rise of Austrian on the internet with the Ron Paul meme.

>>322670
I don't think so, European states are dysfunctional in economic policies because of all these democracies based in social policies rather than economic policies. Here in Spain the government privatized a lot of national companies for a ridiculous small price and now we are paying the consequences, being the second European country that pays more for electricity.

>>322693
This and the need for polemic. Mostly economist are interested in investigating something and coming to some conclusion, rather than engage in a debate of my school vs. your school. It's true for most academic branches, the so-called polemics that get a lot of visibility in the mainstream end up being rarely there in academia.

>>322696
Workers do not even need a particular right to organize. They can just do so.

I am pointing out one particular problem, and I do not mean to say it's universal. What comes to my mind most prominently in this concern are teacher's unions, if you want a general example.

>>322709
They did that in Norway too in the 80s, they privatized real estate, and today it's so expensive to buy a house or an apartment, that probably none of the people of my generation will ever afford one, unless they are payed a gross amount of money.

>>322722
>Workers do not even need a particular right to organize. They can just do so.
Clearly you're not aware of efforts to suppress organization. The right to organize needs protection.

>What comes to my mind most prominently in this concern are teacher's unions, if you want a general example.
Yes it is. But teachers don't work for private institutions. While that creates a can of worms because of the way negotiations are handled, it has considerably less effect on private enterprise, which seems to be the focus of most economic activity.

>>322732
And that's what liberalism is. History teaches us that neoliberal policies aren't good for development.

>>322748
Liberalism encompasses the competing ideologies of social liberalism and classical liberalism.

If you mean neoliberalism, say neoliberalism. Even if people get neoliberalism confused with "liberals" it is at least a more precise term.

>>322748
>>322748
>neoliberalism
Bloody hell I positively hate that word.
You can criticize ideas without making up a silly name for them.

>>322740
Well, I suppose I'm not.

And I suppose I cannot think of another union example off the top of my head that is private. But my main beef with union laws is mandatory membership. That is the particular thread to be pulled.

>>322765
The problem is companies have employed some very manipulative strategies to prevent or dissuade membership, and regulations tend to be half-measures and band-aid fixes. Having non-union workers also puts tension between the two, which is also commonly exploited by employers and also puts unions in a strange spot when doing collective bargaining.

NLRA says you don't have to be a union member, but the employer can not use union fees to dissuade you from joining the union.

>>322796
>NLRA says you don't have to be a union member, but the employer can not use union fees to dissuade you from joining the union.
I said this, but this is a bit misleading, but it's how it works in practice. You can be a non-member, and pay a lower compulsory agency fee which pays for collective bargaining costs, but not anything else. But you would have to be extremely stingy and not value any union benefits to do this.

>>320791
>the faulty premise that profitability naturally flows into higher wages for every employee.
It isn't. It says that real wages will naturally increase, which is not the same as employees getting payed more.

>>320754
>You've got to be willing to take a logical leap that a certain thing is inherently good
That's not the problem with Marxism but rather that it's entirely based on debunked economic and historical theories.

>>322883
So does Austrian, but that doesn't stop them because
>muh praxeology

>>321319
>>321507


And yet

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A067RL1A156NBEA
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC1
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PRS85006163
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AWHMAN

Real wages and income are down. Productivity and output is up. Furthermore, you say people aren't working enough even though the only reason compensation is increasing is because employers hire more workers that work part time (at lower mean wages of course).

You read those charts to say people are lazy, and yet you claim both household members will work? For fun and not profit, presumably, otherwise that would imply there wasn't enough income coming in.

Get over it, incomes need to rise.

File: economics as a system of control.png (878KB, 1336x4500px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 1336x4500px

>>320450
loaded question

File: 1433840435871.jpg (34KB, 461x439px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x439px

>>322748
>unironically saying neoliberalism

> Sticking to ideology and schools rather than just examining all the evidence and theories for each individual issue and coming to meaningful conclusions drawing inspiration from each school.

A Monetarist view of the macroeconomy is fully compatable with many of the insights of the Austrians when it comes to the microeconomy, and on top of all of this Keynesism provides a good framework to analyse demand-side macroeconomics.

>>323108
>Real wages and income are down.
Are you stupid? Look at the first chart you posted. The increase in income is almost always positive

>>322106
>I'm a freshman
Opinion discarded.

>>321946
Marxist are often very intelligent and sophisticated. David Harvey is perfectly capable of critique of Marxism.

Austrian school is 100% retards.

File: 1418280308292.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1280x720px

>>322510
>Living wage

File: 1440533848863.jpg (35KB, 640x399px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x399px

>>323606
>Marxist are often very intelligent and sophisticated

File: 5467476.jpg (65KB, 800x689px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x689px

>>323606
>Marxist are often very intelligent and sophisticated.
>t.Marxist