# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  University Bureaucracy Squelching Austrian Economics!

## thechitowncubs

Today after a discussion about government control of prices in a mixed economy I went up to my professor and asked if he ever heard of Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises. He said no.

I then asked if he ever has heard of Austrian Economics, he showed some signs of familiarity. He is a foreign teacher so I don't think he has become aware of how America really works, yet. He said he heard about Austrian Economics and said that they talk about the Federal Reserve and such. Then he went on to say that his professors have told him not to use the Austrian school of thought when writing for graduate classes and that he should not focus on it at all. 

At this point, I started to wonder, is it common for the Austrian school to be so ridiculed on a theoretical basis or is it more of a powers that be incentive type thing.

Any thoughts? I got the shivers when I heard his response and the way he smiled when I talked to him about it.

----------


## angelatc

Are you in Chicago?

----------


## Aldanga

I wonder the same thing myself, although my economics professor is a little more open to talking about Austrian economists. (I'm not sure if we'll ever get into Austrian economics in my intro to economics class, but he's mentioned Rothbard and Hayek in passing.)

In that class we're actually reading a book about how to apply Christian principles in economics. It talks about how the government must get involved when the free market can't correct itself, but really doesn't explain how the free market can't correct itself. (My books are lined with notes yelling at the author to actually back up his assumptions.)

/ mindless babbling

I think there is an attempt to squelch Austrian Economics. Strengthen up your brain and win the arguments. Maybe even persuade your professor. ;-)


*edit*

I forgot I'm in Chicago. Why am I surprised?

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

I don't think there's any agenda out against Austrian thought specifically, just a general thought-conditioning that freedom is bad/risky and must be managed by government.

----------


## thechitowncubs

Im going to SIUC

----------


## thechitowncubs

> I wonder the same thing myself, although my economics professor is a little more open to talking about Austrian economists. (I'm not sure if we'll ever get into Austrian economics in my intro to economics class, but he's mentioned Rothbard and Hayek in passing.)
> 
> In that class we're actually reading a book about how to apply Christian principles in economics. It talks about how the government must get involved when the free market can't correct itself, but really doesn't explain how the free market can't correct itself. (My books are lined with notes yelling at the author to actually back up his assumptions.)
> 
> / mindless babbling
> 
> I think there is an attempt to squelch Austrian Economics. Strengthen up your brain and win the arguments. Maybe even persuade your professor. ;-)
> 
> 
> ...


Thats what I'm going to do, he definitely is the type of person that is open and ready to hear any students thoughts.

----------


## nullvalu

Ah, sorry to go off-subject, but since you're from Chicago - did you hear about Loyola's "Behavioral Concerns Team"?

Basically if a student is acting in a manner which would not be considered "normal", then you are to report them immediately to this group for investigation. They will investigate the suspect, and refer them to a mental health professional, or if they don't comply, expel them.

Nice to know the Gestapo is alive & well in our school systems.

----------


## Kade

In real academics, Rothbard and such are jokes... but you won't learn that on these forums. 

Your professor sounds like an idiot though... all my financial professors knew Rothbard, some hate, some love... no in-between.

Mises=/=Rothbard either.

----------


## dannno

> Are you in Chicago?


Hah, what an appropriate question!!

The neocons came from the University of Chicago, educated primarily by Professor Leon Strauss.. they support big government spending, empires and running a deficit. Therefore Austrian School Economics is of no use to their goal of globalist domination through currency expansion.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo80.html

----------


## strapko

> In real academics, Rothbard and such are jokes... but you won't learn that on these forums. 
> 
> Your professor sounds like an idiot though... all my financial professors knew Rothbard, some hate, some love... no in-between.
> 
> Mises=/=Rothbard either.


Just like in the "real media" we are kooks. I am sure you are wiser in economics then the Austrian school.

----------


## georgiaboy

I think I read on these forums that certain universities teach primarily from the Austrian school of thought.  Auburn U., in Alabama, (and metro home of the Mises Institute), is of course one of them.

----------


## JAlli41

> Ah, sorry to go off-subject, but since you're from Chicago - did you hear about Loyola's "Behavioral Concerns Team"?
> 
> Basically if a student is acting in a manner which would not be considered "normal", then you are to report them immediately to this group for investigation. They will investigate the suspect, and refer them to a mental health professional, or if they don't comply, expel them.
> 
> Nice to know the Gestapo is alive & well in our school systems.


This sounds like an attempt to prevent school shootings, I'm not saying its right, but it sounds like they're just trying to help some kids out.

----------


## Kade

> Just like in the "real media" we are kooks. I am sure you are wiser in economics then the Austrian school.


I didn't say you were kooks. I happen to admire the more intellectual base and foundation of the Austrian School... I just think it is wrong.

----------


## nullvalu

> This sounds like an attempt to prevent school shootings, I'm not saying its right, but it sounds like they're just trying to help some kids out.


yeah, that's what they say it's for. i see it causing more problems than preventing..

----------


## powerofreason

> I didn't say you were kooks. I happen to admire the more intellectual base and foundation of the Austrian School... I just think it is wrong.


Which parts? And what school of economic thought do you agree with most? Chicago?

----------


## strapko

> I didn't say you were kooks. I happen to admire the more intellectual base and foundation of the Austrian School... I just think it is wrong.


 Ron Paul's economic study comes from the Austrian school, he is the most fiscal conservative out of all the elected representatives. The Austrian school predicted correct outcomes when the government intervened in the market; Hayek explained how bubbles grew and poped; other economic schools claimed that it was a natural process in the economy. If you call today's economy, which is greatly influenced by Marxism, Keynesian and other statist bull$#@! real...I don't know what to say. 

Austrian economics is probably the only system compatible with freedom.

Also, can you please state your positions on what principles make Austrian economics wrong.

----------


## Kade

> Ron Paul's economic study comes from the Austrian school, he is the most fiscal conservative out of all the elected representatives. The Austrian school predicted correct outcomes when the government intervened in the market; Hayek explained how bubbles grew and poped; other economic schools claimed that it was a natural process in the economy. If you call today's economy, which is greatly influenced by Marxism, Keynesian and other statist bull$#@! real...I don't know what to say. 
> 
> Austrian economics is probably the only system compatible with freedom.
> 
> Also, can you please state your positions on what principles make Austrian economics wrong.


You provide the RonShield as if I am somehow going to suddenly bow down and worship his principles like a mental slave. Nope. I have a brain thank you, and I can disagree with whatever the hell I want.... 

It is not the case that anything "not Austrian" is automatically statism... that is the privilege of re-turds, floating in a toilet bowl of their own stupidity.

----------


## strapko

> You provide the RonShield as if I am somehow going to suddenly bow down and worship his principles like a mental slave. Nope. I have a brain thank you, and I can disagree with whatever the hell I want.... 
> 
> It is not the case that anything "not Austrian" is automatically statism... that is the privilege of re-turds, floating in a toilet bowl of their own stupidity.


Thank you for your positions on how Austrian economics is wrong. Thanks on answering everything, but the most important part.

----------


## powerofreason

> You provide the RonShield™ as if I am somehow going to suddenly bow down and worship his principles like a mental slave. Nope. I have a brain thank you, and I can disagree with whatever the hell I want.... 
> 
> It is not the case that anything "not Austrian" is automatically statism... that is the privilege of re-turds, floating in a toilet bowl of their own stupidity.


get the sand out of your vagina and answer the question?

----------


## nullvalu

> You provide the RonShield as if I am somehow going to suddenly bow down and worship his principles like a mental slave. Nope. I have a brain thank you, and I can disagree with whatever the hell I want.... 
> 
> It is not the case that anything "not Austrian" is automatically statism... that is the privilege of re-turds, floating in a toilet bowl of their own stupidity.


Would you mind stepping down from your individualistic high horse for a few moments to inform the rest of us mere mortals what exactly you find so distasteful about Austrian economics?

Don't give us another rant please, just answer the question.. thanks..

----------


## Kade

> Which parts? And what school of economic thought do you agree with most? Chicago?


The more I study the economy, (I am relatively new to it) the more I have taken to Reflexivity and the Behavioral Economics of Caginalp.

----------


## strapko

> The more I study the economy, (I am relatively new to it) the more I have taken to Reflexivity and the Behavioral Economics of Caginalp.


Nice, A nooby in economics talking down Austrian school.

----------


## Kade

My major frustration with the Austrian School is the utter lack of Empirical methodology.

----------


## nullvalu

> The more I study the economy, (I am relatively new to it) the more I have taken to Reflexivity and the Behavioral Economics of Caginalp.


Nice, an attempt to stump us, very clear thinking.

Might I point out, you still haven't answered the question?

----------


## Kade

> Nice, A nooby in economics talking down Austrian school.


Can you explain to me, using Austrian School Logic, why spending in every sector falls during a recession?

----------


## Kade

> Nice, an attempt to stump us, very clear thinking.
> 
> Might I point out, you still haven't answered the question?


This question?




> Would you mind stepping down from your individualistic high horse for a few moments to inform the rest of us mere mortals what exactly you find so distasteful about Austrian economics?


I did answer it.

----------


## strapko

> My major frustration with the Austrian School is the utter lack of Empirical methodology.


Sorry, but human action does not have Empirical methodology; the market is always different, consumerism is different, nothing is constant.

----------


## strapko

I'll be back to answer that one Kade. Have a college paper on Mccains and Obama's economic policies.

----------


## Chiznaddy

I was an economics major at UCLA.  I only had one class that was remotely freemarket.  It was taught by a Libertarian about the inefficiency of government.

It was a good class, but there was no philosophical discussion about free markets, just graphs that held government efficiency to be assumed with some empirical evidence.

Other than that, I was taught pure Keynsian theory as if it were gold and the word of God.  There was no serious discussion, or recognition for that matter, of truely free market theories.

----------


## powerofreason

> My major frustration with the Austrian School is the utter lack of Empirical methodology.


And yet their predictions still prove to be correct....

Example: When the dollar was finally cut lose from gold by Nixon in the early 70's, the Austrians were the only ones who predicted the value of gold would shoot up dramatically. The Keynesians and even the Friedmanites (Chicago school) predicted the price of gold would fall to $6 an ounce. They were proven to be absolutely, 100% wrong. It ended up going to like $140 within a relatively short period of time. The Austrians were the only ones who got it right. Data and statistics are only as good as the interpreter. I prefer sound reasoning and logic, first and foremost.

So maybe you can show us where the Austrians have been incorrect in their predictions?

----------


## nullvalu

> Can you explain to me, using Austrian School Logic, why spending in every sector falls during a recession?


I would say the answer would point back to the cause of the recession. If it because of the over-availability of credit and consumers blindly spend like mad on credit...... once they've reached certain limits they must begin paying down their debts.. therefore having less money to spend in other sectors.. so i'd almost have to say spending never falls during a recession in all sectors, but is only spent differently.

----------


## Kade

> And yet their predictions still prove to be correct....
> 
> Example: When the dollar was finally cut lose from gold by Nixon in the early 70's, the Austrians were the only ones who predicted the value of gold would shoot up dramatically. The Keynesians and even the Friedmanites (Chicago school) predicted the price of gold would fall to $6 an ounce. They were proven to be absolutely, 100% wrong. It ended up going to like $140 within a relatively short period of time. The Austrians were the only ones who got it right. Data and statistics are only as good as the interpreter. I prefer sound reasoning and logic, first and foremost.
> 
> So maybe you can show us where the Austrians have been incorrect in their predictions?



Only the predictions that are illustrated by the advocates for the "Great Theory". 

Take for instance the idea that unemployment was merely a" frictional problem" which was simply the economy transferring workers from investment sectors to consumer production goods sectors. 

Wanna talk about that?

----------


## Kade

> I would say the answer would point back to the cause of the recession. If it because of the over-availability of credit and consumers blindly spend like mad on credit...... once they've reached certain limits they must begin paying down their debts.. therefore having less money to spend in other sectors.. so i'd almost have to say spending never falls during a recession in all sectors, but is only spent differently.


But the Austrian School claims differently...

----------


## nullvalu

> But the Austrian School claims differently...


How so?

----------


## powerofreason

> Only the predictions that are illustrated by the advocates for the "Great Theory". 
> 
> Take for instance the idea that unemployment was merely a" frictional problem" which was simply the economy transferring workers from investment sectors to consumer production goods sectors. 
> 
> Wanna talk about that?


Who said it? when? what book or article? Need some context here.

----------


## powerofreason

Where's Hans Hermann-Hoppe when ya need him? 

sigh

----------


## thechitowncubs

> But the Austrian School claims differently...


Doesn't the Austrian school believe that entire market recessions aren't normal for an economy based on capitalism?

So lets define recession: a misallocation of resources finally coming to fruition with all the malinvestments in plain sight. *laymans terms*

So during a recession wouldn't a sheep just make the choice to wait it out and not invest in anything not completely inelastic? Doesn't this explain quite simply why people don't spend as much?

----------


## Kade

> Doesn't the Austrian school believe that entire market recessions aren't normal for an economy based on capitalism?
> 
> So lets define recession: a misallocation of resources finally coming to fruition with all the malinvestments in plain sight.
> 
> So during a recession wouldn't a sheep just make the choice to wait it out and not invest in anything not completely inelastic? Doesn't this explain quite simply why people don't spend as much?


The logical game continues... redefining something so that it fits into the model.

A recession is a retraction phase of a business cycle. Period. 

A monopoly is a massive share of the market. Period.

Austrians and their weak definitions of $#@!. I swear.

----------


## nullvalu

> The logical game continues... redefining something so that it fits into the model.
> 
> A recession is a retraction phase of a business cycle. Period. 
> 
> A monopoly is a massive share of the market. Period.
> 
> Austrians and their weak definitions of $#@!. I swear.


What the hell, as you pick & chose your battles as not to venture too far from what you think you understand.

Austrians don't think monopolies are inherently evil in so long as they gained their influence through fair market practices, and providing to the public in that market share a quality product at a fair price. And not through government subsidizing, legislative lobbying, or other intrusions of government into the marketplace.

----------


## thechitowncubs

Ok so why do consumers spend less in a recession?

----------


## Chiznaddy

> And yet their predictions still prove to be correct....
> 
> Example: When the dollar was finally cut lose from gold by Nixon in the early 70's, the Austrians were the only ones who predicted the value of gold would shoot up dramatically. The Keynesians and even the Friedmanites (Chicago school) predicted the price of gold would fall to $6 an ounce. They were proven to be absolutely, 100% wrong. It ended up going to like $140 within a relatively short period of time. The Austrians were the only ones who got it right. Data and statistics are only as good as the interpreter. I prefer sound reasoning and logic, first and foremost.
> 
> So maybe you can show us where the Austrians have been incorrect in their predictions?


Austrian theory is rational, logical, and objective.  

Keynsian economics is BS because they try to put an A,B,X,Y math problem/graph/chart etc. to every economic problem.  Thus, they manipulate a variable to reach an answer they want and walaah! They think they can find an answer to the world's problems by changing a variable, ignoring the negative effect it may have on other variables they conveniently "hold constant".  

This is an especially dangerous trait in Keynesian monatary policy, where he argues that expanding the money supply will increase production and help the economy, but failing to recognize that the effect of inflation and overinvestment due to expanding the money supply will eventually catch up with the increased production by deflating the purchasing power of the money the increased production has "created" and a recession or depression is likely to result.  

Keynsian fiscal policy is a bigger dissaster and has very socialistic implications.

----------


## OferNave

Keynesian economics, which dominated academia for most of the last century (and continues to do so), is big government propaganda.  It's no surprise it is pushed in every college and university, while Austrian economics is treated like Ron Paul at a Republican debate.

Yes, the schools are controlled, and the professors have been brainwashed.  This is not news.  Don't ever place your faith in authority, it's a fallacy.

----------


## Kade

> Keynesian economics, which dominated academia for most of the last century (and continues to do so), is big government propaganda.  It's no surprise it is pushed in every college and university, while Austrian economics is treated like Ron Paul at a Republican debate.
> 
> Yes, the schools are controlled, and the professors have been brainwashed.  This is not news.  Don't ever place your faith in authority, it's a fallacy.


Professors have been brainwashed? 

People with access to the world's libraries, every major bit of information in the world.. are brainwashed?!

I don't have words to describe how spectacular your level of stupidity has become...

----------


## thechitowncubs

> Professors have been brainwashed? 
> 
> People with access to the world's libraries, every major bit of information in the world.. are brainwashed?!
> 
> I don't have words to describe how spectacular your level of stupidity has become...


You seem to have a lot of skills that would help influence people. 

If you really think your way of thinking is so much better, don't you have an incentive to introduce people to it... so as to create a better world?

----------


## Kade

> You seem to have a lot of skills that would help influence people. 
> 
> If you really think your way of thinking is so much better, don't you have an incentive to introduce people to it... so as to create a better world?


I am not this combative in person... these forums get to me. Every major discussion I start resorts to a full flame war... my points are better delivered through snark and insults... 

I do work to introduce people to knew ways of thinking of the world, those that are stubbornly leftist and right... or who refuse to choose a side even... 

Here, I must be the liberal. Here we are deep, deep in the pit of unrepentant absurdity.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Professors have been brainwashed? 
> 
> People with access to the world's libraries, every major bit of information in the world.. are brainwashed?!
> 
> I don't have words to describe how spectacular your level of stupidity has become...


they suffer from the same thing so many do.  They enter a subject with their minds already made up and spend a lifetime defending their closed way of thinking.

Or to dumb it down further, "those that can, do"

----------


## nullvalu

I see Kade has once again resulted to insults rather than logical discussions. I was trying to respond to your questions, however you have once to make a valid point, unless you consider your rhetorical nonsense to be valid points....

----------


## zade

I'm a reader, but rare poster here.

I just wanted to tell Kade how much I enjoy his postings. Sticking it to the loony tunes who think anything that isn't straight from Ron Paul's mouth is part of the NWO

----------


## Kade

> they suffer from the same thing so many do.  They enter a subject with their minds already made up and spend a lifetime defending their closed way of thinking.
> 
> Or to dumb it down further, "those that can, do"


You know, you folks sure do know quite a bit about me... it's easy to attack a defined target. 

Who do you respect? You know that I am strong student of Jefferson, Paine, Russell, Soros, Nietzsche...etc... 

Is there someone you respect intellectually?

----------


## ARealConservative

> You know, you folks sure do know quite a bit about me... it's easy to attack a defined target. 
> 
> Who do you respect? You know that I am strong student of Jefferson, Paine, Russell, Soros, Nietzsche...etc... 
> 
> Is there someone you respect intellectually?


I know virtually nothing about you.

Many of us have a great deal of respect for Murray Rothbard however.

----------


## Kade

> I know virtually nothing about you.
> 
> Many of us have a great deal of respect for Murray Rothbard however.


"Many of us" are not you. I could be a prick and point out the irony of that collectivist statement. 

You respect Rothbard?

----------


## ARealConservative

> "Many of us" are not you. I could be a prick and point out the irony of that collectivist statement. 
> 
> You respect Rothbard?


Yes, I respect Rothbard, as do many of us on this forum.

----------


## Kade

> Yes, I respect Rothbard, as do many of us on this forum.


Well good, maybe you can tell me then what Rothbard gave to us that was unique...

----------


## nullvalu

> Well good, maybe you can tell me then what Rothbard gave to us that was unique...


keep ignoring

----------


## powerofreason

> Well good, maybe you can tell me then what Rothbard gave to us that was unique...


A complete definition of liberty? 

"For a New Liberty"

"The Ethics of Liberty"

ring a bell?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Well good, maybe you can tell me then what Rothbard gave to us that was unique...


common sense.

----------


## Kade

> keep ignoring


What is your question chief?

----------


## Kade

> A complete definition of liberty? 
> 
> "For a New Liberty"
> 
> "The Ethics of Liberty"
> 
> ring a bell?


Both of those are ripoffs of other works.

----------


## nullvalu

> What is your question chief?


How about starting by answering your original question, and telling my why you said what wrote in response was incorrect.




> Can you explain to me, using Austrian School Logic, why spending in every sector falls during a recession?

----------


## powerofreason

> Both of those are ripoffs of other works.


For A New Liberty, Copyright date 1973

The Ethics of Liberty, Copyright date 1982

The Market For Liberty, Copyright date *1984*


who ripped off who? 

fool

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Well good, maybe you can tell me then what Rothbard gave to us that was unique...


let's start with you... what do you offer that's unique other than your obsession to be so?

----------


## powerofreason

Oh how cute, you edited your post. Keep talking out of your ass and hope no one notices Kade...

----------


## Kade

> let's start with you... what do you offer that's unique other than your obsession to be so?


That's an interesting way to frame that question. Have you ever tried approaching me without insulting? You might be surprised.

I am constantly under scrutiny, and I don't exactly offer myself up as a mentor for anyone... 

But as it stands, I can offer an pretty solid analysis of human behavior in regards to political situations. I can help you become a better social engineer, I can analyze people's emotional responses in situations, I can demonstrate fluid analysis of history. I can offer a substantial amount of real world technology advice and troubleshooting... 

In terms of uniqueness, I suppose my variety of merit-based technocracy is rather unique. 

As it stands as well, even though my liberalism is not unique, it appears it stands as such on these forums..

Anything else?

----------


## Kade

> How about starting by answering your original question, and telling my why you said what wrote in response was incorrect.


I don't understand.

----------


## Kade

> For A New Liberty, Copyright date 1973
> 
> The Ethics of Liberty, Copyright date 1982
> 
> The Market For Liberty, Copyright date *1984*
> 
> 
> who ripped off who? 
> 
> fool


??

----------


## powerofreason

> ??


Supposedly, For a New Liberty is a verbatim ripoff of The Market For Liberty written after it? Oh thats right you deleted that part of your post so lets pretend it was never there.

----------


## nullvalu

> I don't understand.


What are you talking about, you don't understand. I'm asking for your explanation of why spending falls in all sectors during a recession. What's not to understand?

----------


## strapko

I like how Kade gave 2 examples, that were refuted and doesn't show what his economic school has to offer; then he quickly switches topics, because he knows he doesn't know what he is talking about. Don't criticize things you have little understanding off and call them academic fallacies.

----------


## powerofreason

I am now convinced that kade is a sociopath. And a troll.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I am now convinced that kade is a sociopath. And a troll.


Ironically, he is one of the more valuable contributors on this forum.

As much as it sucks to admit it, the majority of posters here couldn't debate their way out of a wet paper bag and he enjoys beating up on those kind.

I would say this is the one thing that is holding us back.....Too many libertarian purists unaware that there truly are holes in the plan.

----------


## powerofreason

> Ironically, he is one of the more valuable contributors on this forum.
> 
> As much as it sucks to admit it, the majority of posters here couldn't debate their way out of a wet paper bag and he enjoys beating up on those kind.
> 
> I would say this is the one thing that is holding us back.....Too many libertarian purists unaware that there truly are holes in the plan.


Well, I disagree. He hasn't made one substantive post in this thread for sure.

As far as "holes in the plan" I have no idea what you mean by that.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Well, I disagree. He hasn't made one substantive post in this thread for sure.
> 
> As far as "holes in the plan" I have no idea what you mean by that.


This is not a libertarian movement, yet the majority on this forum act like it is.

The plan I am speaking of is going above and beyond the restoration of the constitution and the rule of law.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> That's an interesting way to frame that question. Have you ever tried approaching me without insulting? You might be surprised.
> 
> I am constantly under scrutiny, and I don't exactly offer myself up as a mentor for anyone...


You bring all this upon yourself. I bet you like it, too, beneath the emo-boy facade...

You falsely accuse me as an idiot jesus-freak in another thread and now play the victim? ha.



Anyway, I actually did like you at one point.

I will be more respectful to you in the future.

----------


## powerofreason

> This is not a libertarian movement, yet the majority on this forum act like it is.
> 
> The plan I am speaking of is going above and beyond the restoration of the constitution and the rule of law.


Libertarianism is the heart and soul of traditonal conservatism. Supposing we can ever get our government down to the minarchist ideal then we can discuss and debate the next step. Thats a big "if." Probably one I won't see in my lifetime, but who knows? Our short term goals are the same and thats all that matters for now. If you think its better we have public schools with compulsory attendance, public roads, etc, thats ok. I don't really care. Thats not whats important now.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Libertarianism is the heart and soul of traditonal conservatism. Supposing we can ever get our *federal* government down to the minarchist ideal then we can discuss and debate the next step. Thats a big "if." Probably one I won't see in my lifetime, but who knows? Our short term goals are the same and thats all that matters for now. If you think its better we have public schools with compulsory attendance, public roads, etc, thats ok. I don't really care. Thats not whats important now.


outside of the one minor correction, I'm in total agreement.

----------


## strapko

> This is not a libertarian movement, yet the majority on this forum act like it is.
> 
> The plan I am speaking of is going above and beyond the restoration of the constitution and the rule of law.


Let me put it to you, how Friedman put it to me: A conservative is someone who wants to save, to conserve something; do you want to conserve the way our government acts right now? Mind I say, Milton said this when government was probably 4 times smaller then now lol. He then goes on to say he is a liberal, but means classical liberal, which today is known as libertarian.

----------


## nullvalu

> What are you talking about, you don't understand. I'm asking for your explanation of why spending falls in all sectors during a recession. What's not to understand?


Kade, i am however, still waiting.....

----------


## ARealConservative

> Let me put it to you, how Friedman put it to me: A conservative is someone who wants to save, to conserve something; do you want to conserve the way our government acts right now? Mind I say, Milton said this when government was probably 4 times smaller then now lol. He then goes on to say he is a liberal, but means classical liberal, which today is known as libertarian.


I want to save the original understanding of the constitution.

----------


## strapko

> i am however, still waiting.....


Dude, he is off to study it, before replying.

----------


## nullvalu

> Dude, he is off to study it, before replying.


OMG I may as well give up on it then.

----------


## strapko

> I want to save the original understanding of the constitution.


Who doesn't on these forums =D.

----------


## 0zzy

I wanted to go to SIUC, my grandma lives in Anna (near Carbondale)!

----------


## ARealConservative

> Who doesn't on these forums =D.


I don't want to point fingers.........

----------


## strapko

I want to go to Chicago for my econ major, but it looks like Miltion's ideas are long gone from that school.

----------


## dannno

> The more I study the economy, (I am relatively new to it) the more I have taken to Reflexivity and the Behavioral Economics of Caginalp.


Have you been reading George Soros??

----------


## OferNave

I don't pick my beliefs out of a hat.  I look at evidence, reach the best conclusion I can, then gather more evidence, and reevaluate.  Repeat until I die.

This is a complex topic.  If you want to know more about my conclusions and the supporting evidence, then I direct you to read the same sources I did, and then draw your own conclusions.

This is my favorite starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Really-W...dp/0964084813/

----------


## ARealConservative

> Have you been reading George Soros??


worse.  He respects the Keynesian apologists and their "theories" on how the central planners failed to prevent the 1987 crash.

----------


## RonPaulFever

> Im going to SIUC


What's the professor's name?  Poli Sci was my major and I might have had him/her for a class previously.

----------


## danberkeley

> I don't understand.


Of course you don't. What else is new.




> Ironically, he is one of the more valuable contributors on this forum.
> 
> As much as it sucks to admit it, the majority of posters here couldn't debate their way out of a wet paper bag and he enjoys beating up on those kind.
> 
> I would say this is the one thing that is holding us back.....Too many libertarian purists unaware that there truly are holes in the plan.


What are you talking about? Kade is a terrible debator. No one with an IQ above 125 takes him seriously. You got to be an idiot to say "Kade won the debate" when you know his arguments are full of fallacies, dodges, and poop. But Kade sure is great at pissing people off, but then you realize how ugly his avatar is and you feel much better. Wasn't Kade an Obama supporter? Anyway, here Kade's debating strategy:

RPF User: Describe the fallacies with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Kade: Bizarro not like Superman. Bizarro have no friends. Bizarro plant tree in forest... Bizarro eat tree.

----------


## RonPaulFever

If we're too stupid to "get" you, Kade, why do you still post here?  Perhaps you'll find more intellectual discourse at an Obama forum, which is where you belong anyway.  Go there and spew your holier-than-thou $#@!, because your pretentious babble makes me nauseous.

----------


## thechitowncubs

> What's the professor's name?  Poli Sci was my major and I might have had him/her for a class previously.


Fassil Fanta....

----------


## freelance

> Today after a discussion about government control of prices in a mixed economy I went up to my professor and asked if he ever heard of Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises. He said no.
> 
> I then asked if he ever has heard of Austrian Economics, he showed some signs of familiarity. He is a foreign teacher so I don't think he has become aware of how America really works, yet. He said he heard about Austrian Economics and said that they talk about the Federal Reserve and such. Then he went on to say that his professors have told him not to use the Austrian school of thought when writing for graduate classes and that he should not focus on it at all. 
> 
> At this point, I started to wonder, is it common for the Austrian school to be so ridiculed on a theoretical basis or is it more of a powers that be incentive type thing.
> 
> Any thoughts? I got the shivers when I heard his response and the way he smiled when I talked to him about it.


Who owns the universities, even the private ones and the foundations that fund them? Who funds the chairs, the research, etc.? Do you really expect the universities to teach a philosophy contrary to the one that brings in the bucks?

The government owns everything and most everyone.

----------


## ruggedindividualist

> In real academics, Rothbard and such are jokes... but you won't learn that on these forums. 
> 
> Your professor sounds like an idiot though... all my financial professors knew Rothbard, some hate, some love... no in-between.
> 
> Mises=/=Rothbard either.



Define "real academics". Nearly all self-proclaimed "academics" I have personally known (and I've been around long enough to have known a few) have been pompous horses asses who couldn't hope to have achieved the smallest amount of what Mises and Rothbard have. So the educational establishment tries to marginalize the Austrians who do not provide esoteric "economic" justifications for looting, aggression and murder by the state. Gee, what a shock.

----------


## ruggedindividualist

> Who owns the universities, even the private ones and the foundations that fund them? Who funds the chairs, the research, etc.? Do you really expect the universities to teach a philosophy contrary to the one that brings in the bucks?
> 
> The government owns everything and most everyone.


Grove City College: The economics department is heavily Austrian influenced and they do not accept federal student aid.

Great school.

----------


## freelance

> Grove City College: The economics department is heavily Austrian influenced and they do not accept federal student aid.
> 
> Great school.


That's really interesting! Do they accept federal dollars for research and other things? Are they a public or private school?

----------


## strapko

Austrian Economic defenders +1; Kade -1

----------


## Conza88

> Would you mind stepping down from your individualistic high horse for a few moments to inform the rest of us mere mortals what exactly you find so distasteful about Austrian economics?
> 
> Don't give us another rant please, just answer the question.. thanks..


Kade likes to think he's unique. So he parades as a collectivist on an individualist orientated forum. He then calls everyone collectivists and psychopathically considers himself to be the only individual. He just fails to recognise the fact that the majority of the population are collectivists. He has some sick devotion to the word _"liberal"_ & won't let reality sway him.




> Ironically, he is one of the more valuable contributors on this forum.
> 
> As much as it sucks to admit it, the majority of posters here couldn't debate their way out of a wet paper bag and he enjoys beating up on those kind.
> 
> I would say this is the one thing that is holding us back.....Too many libertarian purists unaware that there truly are holes in the plan.


I call bull$#@!. Valuable contributions? Name them please. Holes in the plan... like what? 




> Austrian Economic defenders +1; Kade -1


+13; -7

----------


## powerofreason

> Holes in the plan... like what?


Hehe, thats always a fun debate. Better start a new thread

----------


## strapko

> Hehe, thats always a fun debate. Better start a new thread


The holes I assume from what I seen Kade posting is:

Quackery in the free market
Worker rights - lol
no public education, everyone will be a barbarian zomg!
and basically all the other emotional arguments the media puts out, which have been proven to be fallacy.

----------


## Arklatex

I first read of free market economic advantages from guess where?  My intro econ class back in college at a southern university.  That was around 04.

----------


## powerofreason

> The holes I assume from what I seen Kade posting is:
> 
> Quackery in the free market
> Worker rights - lol
> no public education, everyone will be a barbarian zomg!
> and basically all the other emotional arguments the media puts out, which have been proven to be fallacy.


I'm thinking more minarchist vs. anarchist. In other words, what services does the state provide us that we can't provide for ourselves? Like I said, always a fun debate.

----------


## Conza88

> I'm thinking more minarchist vs. anarchist. In other words, what services does the state provide us that we can't provide for ourselves? Like I said, always a fun debate.


I'm not sure that's what arealconservative was referring to though...

Anyway; I'm an anarcho-capitalist mostly.. / minarchist / libertarian depending on my ability to successfully defend the argument.

----------


## powerofreason

> I'm not sure that's what arealconservative was referring to though...
> 
> Anyway; I'm an anarcho-capitalist mostly.. / minarchist / libertarian depending on my ability to successfully defend the argument.


He basically did, go re-read what he said about "going above and beyond restoring the Constitution"

----------


## strapko

Ah, I myself have not studied any type of anarchy. I have not read Rothbard yet either; god damn, I have so many books backed up on my list...only if I could read 1000 words a min =D. I am on Adam Smiths wealth of nations atm.

----------


## powerofreason

> Ah, I myself have not studied any type of anarchy. I have not read Rothbard yet either; god damn, I have so many books backed up on my list...only if I could read 1000 words a min =D. I am on Adam Smiths wealth of nations atm.


Rothbard does make quite a compelling case for eliminating government, so thats where I'm at until someone can convince me he's wrong. The whole system of liberty works so nicely that its hard for me to imagine that freedom only works 95% of the time, or even 99% of the time. Why not 100%?

----------


## Conza88

> He basically did, go re-read what he said about "going above and beyond restoring the Constitution"





> outside of the one minor correction, I'm in total agreement.


- He agreed with your comment, except added _"federal"_ government instead of government overall.

More paeloconservative then...  Hence the name; A REAL conservative? 

So _"basically"_... no. Anyway - why are you speaking for him?

----------


## powerofreason

> - He agreed with your comment, except added _"federal"_ government instead of government overall.
> 
> More paeloconservative then...  Hence the name; A REAL conservative? 
> 
> So _"basically"_... no. Anyway - why are you speaking for him?


Anyways.... Thread officially derailed.

----------


## Conza88

> Today after a discussion about government control of prices in a mixed economy I went up to my professor and asked if he ever heard of Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises. He said no.
> 
> I then asked if he ever has heard of Austrian Economics, he showed some signs of familiarity. He is a foreign teacher so I don't think he has become aware of how America really works, yet. He said he heard about Austrian Economics and said that they talk about the Federal Reserve and such. Then he went on to say that his professors have told him not to use the Austrian school of thought when writing for graduate classes and that he should not focus on it at all. 
> 
> At this point, I started to wonder, is it common for the Austrian school to be so ridiculed on a theoretical basis or is it more of a powers that be incentive type thing.
> 
> Any thoughts? I got the shivers when I heard his response and the way he smiled when I talked to him about it.


*Guess who wrote my Economics & Policy Analysis course textbook?*  

Anyway.. last economics lecture before mid-sem exam.
*



Contents
Summary of Lectures 1 to 5
How the topics are related
Lessons from the past
Schools of thought in macroeconomics
Some concluding thoughts
			
		

*
_Cont:_



> Schools of Thought
> -In order to understand better the prevailing economic conditions, different schools of thought have arisen
> -Each emphasises those parts of the economy it considers more important
> -Each claims to be able to explain the situation better





> Keynesian School of Thought 
> -Keynesians believe the demand side of the economy is the key to business cycle fluctuations
> -Investment demand is built on expectations of future profit
> -The greatest influence of expectations for the future is the current situation
> -If the current economic situation is a downturn, it is difficult for a firm to consider investing, as AD will only increase if many firms increase investment
> -This is a co-ordination failure, as without a co-ordinated plan of a whole range of firms investing, no firm will feel confident enough to be the first
> -The result is the economy becomes trapped in a self- perpetuating, low investment and low output equilibrium
> -Governments should use fiscal and monetary policies to maintain a high level of aggregate demand so the economy remains at potential output





> Monetarist School of Thought
> -Emerging in the 1960s and early 1970s, monetarists disagreed with the view that the economy could be trapped in a self-perpetuating low output and high unemployment equilibrium
> -They believe the economy will return to potential output in the long run after a shift in aggregate demand
> -They believe if there is a recession, it is most likely due to poor government policy 
> -Governments should avoid policies that lead to high inflation
> -Monetarists believe the cause of the Great Depression was a contractionary monetary policy when expansionary monetary policy was needed
> -Monetarists gained influence as a result of the Great Inflation of 1970s and 1980s caused by oil shocks
> -Keynesian policies were not helpful in economies with both high inflation and high unemployment





> New Classical School of Thought
> -These economists also believe that the economy will return to potential output in the long run after a shift in aggregate demand
> -Workers and firms are said to have rational expectations, which involves a complete understanding of the structure of the economy.
> -Therefore, workers and firms will organise their affairs based on an understanding the economy will be at potential output, and any change in AD will only change inflation
> -Therefore, they will negotiate nominal prices so that real wages, employment and output don’t change





> Then they had some {Chris Rock} "Buuullllllllllll$#@!" about**:
> New Keynesian School
> -New Keynesians believe that imperfections in markets (e.g. imperfect information, monopoly, and trade unions) impede the price system from restoring potential GDP after a demand or supply disturbance
> -Therefore, there is a role for government policy to try to improve macroeconomic performance





> Real Business Cycle School
> - The real business cycle school believes that business cycles are not due to fluctuations in AD, but rather to fluctuations in potential GDP resulting from technological shocks
> - These events can produce short-run effects that look like business cycle effects
> - For example, a reduction in total factor productivity would decrease the marginal productivity of labour
> - This shifts the labour demand curve to the left and a lowers the real wage, leading to a fall in employment and therefore output
> - What looks like a recession may just be an efficient response to a productivity decline
> - Economists generally believe such productivity shocks are a factor in the business cycle, but that AD changes are still an important part of the explanation of the business cycle





> Concluding Remarks
> - The economy changes all the time, as technology, values and concerns change 
> - Macroeconomics changes with these, not only in the analytical tools used but also in the questions it asks
> - This is what makes the study of macroeconomics so interesting and challenging


No mention ever about the Austrians... what's even more retarded as considering some of those as _"schools"_.



> Anyways.... Thread officially derailed.


Anyways... Thread officially back on track.

----------


## porcupine

Welcome to college.

----------


## Conza88

So Kade, what do you think about praxeology? 

Feel free to educate yourself & do all the research you want. Take all the time in the world.

----------


## Kade

> So Kade, what do you think about praxeology? 
> 
> Feel free to educate yourself & do all the research you want. Take all the time in the world.


Aww did you just discover something new dearest little newfag? I've already commented on Praxeology a LONG time ago... go worship Cheese with *Theocrat*. 


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1599193

----------

