Economics

What is Jow Forums take on economics? Are you all fucking commies or based libertarians?

Attached: friedmanmilton2_copy.jpg (1337x1431, 95K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/channel/UCyawG3aTE7RmNQcFQskDWcw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Jow Forums will never be fully libertarian because the majority of posters here are poor/unemployed fucking losers.

I'm middleground

>poor/unemployed fucking losers.
If they have a PC I don't think so. They can look it up

Explain

What I’m saying is that poor people don’t like libertarianism because it comes with no free gibs.

libertarians are unwitting tools of plutocrats

its not so much about rich and poor but money is power in libertarian land and the money flows ever upwards. Thus this is not a stable system and it results in a tiny number of super rich and powerful people controlling everything while the rest suffer.

As an economist, Friedman has been irrelevant for a long time. Only people in Law or "Political Science" care about him now, not because he's relevant but because they are hopelessly outdated and don't know enough mathematics to understand economics.

Hayek/Friedman style economics

Yeah but I’ve got wealth so I’m not very keen on people beneath me taking is away from me to use for their offspring. I’m just being honest. I don’t give a shit how effective a libertarian system would be for everyone else, my support of libertarianism comes from two of my beliefs:
1. No human has the authority to tell me what to do or how to live my life unless it directly infringed upon their rights.
2. I should be free to transfer my wealth to my offspring or whoever I please without the unwashed masses getting a cut of it.

I have a degree in economics
I tend to agree with Austrians on microeconomics
I despise free trade because it's very, very obviously a total disaster
Usury should be made illegal
The nation to look at for a successful economy is Germany, observe what happened during their long history, especially in the 19th century

modern economics has become reliant on abstract mathematical models that don't always correlate with reality. not everything can be modelled and measured

its not the people below you you should worry about

I’m within the lower 1% of America, meaning the only people really above me are corporations, and the only reason they’re above me is because kikery allows them to do shit like lobby Congress to fix the market.

How do you propose to determine if a given time valuation for borrowed money is fair or usurious?

Sorry, I meant lower-upper 1%, meaning in the upper 1%, I’m at the bottom of that.

libertarianism in action

You're assuming I'm talking about complex models but I'm not.

Friedman is popular with libertarians because he fits their political ideology, but I don't hear any economists ever talk about him. Some of his ideas are interesting, and his position on the Great Depression is well argued, but it's not the 80s anymore and the economic state of just about every country is wildly different from how it was then, so his theories are more or less useless.
Compound interest

Is nationalism an economic "take"? I came from a libertarian background and am still inclined to think that's generally the better approach, but that this should stop at our borders and apply only insofar as participants acting appropriately. Libertarianism as such has no means to address billionaires financing the flood of the third world into first world countries because it posits these people acting in a rational profit-maximizing manner inconsistent with reality.

Likewise, even without the demographic issues of the US, I dont think the development of hive cities is healthy and so gommie intervention to prevent this degree of buildup and compel some level of decentralization to ensure people can make a decent living outside of a dozen massive cities across the entire continent, where they must pay half+ of their income in rent to maintain stable access to employment opportunities. Likewise, concentration of industry may have some economic benefits, but the social consequences of forcing people to move to one of two or three cities if they want to participate in a given industry tears families apart and prevents the anyone above the working class from setting down multigenerational roots.

Perhaps the best descriptor is libertarian but subordinating economic interests to social interests so we can maintain the social infrastructure that people seem to forget makes it possible.

I have my own take on economics: Jews get out

what models are you talking about?

Economic nationalism could be described as protectionism. It's a legitimate economic position and was practiced by every great economy to some degree. Great Britain became the strongest force in the world under protectionism. America became the wealthiest nation in history under protectionism. Germany dominated the euro-sphere under protectionism.
When Great Britain embraced free trade, it lost heavily to America and Germany, and went on a slow decline and are still falling.
When America embraced free trade, it lost its momentum as the greatest country in the world.
I don't see Germany embracing free trade, in fact, they've put up some good barriers to trade that have kept most of the major industries still in Germany. They now control Western Europe.

Cool, but other people dont care and are willing tonuse the sate against you, and have been. Get used to it.

The extent of the average libertarian's economic understanding is with the supply/demand curve.

its not really libertarian then tho its socialism

>No human has the authority to tell me what to do or how to live my life unless it directly infringed upon their rights
Looking past the absurdity of human rights, they may not have the authority but they certainly have the power.
>I should be free to transfer my wealth to my offspring or whoever I please without the unwashed masses getting a cut of it.
To your offspring? Absolutely. To anyone you please? Absolutely not. That would be horrendous.

>everything is socialism
This is your brain on liberalism

this is true. britain has embraced free trade so much that we don't even own our own utilities and have lost the ability to say, build our own nuclear reactor even tho britain was the first to build a commercial reactor 50 or so years ago

libertarian ofc

Attached: 1559940756505.jpg (1080x1350, 249K)

well socialism is a pretty ill defined

(((Libertarians)))

Libertarianism and socialism are just two made up BS created by the bourgeoisie to cope with the idea of having it better than the poor.
>the poor are just too dumb to become rich, me being rich is fair
>the poor are just too oppressed to become rich, I'm rich but my fight against oppression makes it fair
What to expect from bourgeois thinkers other than them making it all about money.

Libertarians support (((usury))) so no

Why should I not be allowed to gift my wealth to whoever I please? Why is it anyone’s business?

If we put aside the obvious issues with giving unlimited amounts of money to politicians, if you give money to foreigners or invest overseas with absolutely no barriers, capital will flow out of the country and into other countries. If too much capital leaves the country, it can damage the country that now holds that capital by increasing their reliance on your currency. It can damage your own country by messing up the money supply and undermining the central bank's monetary policies.
Investing in business and giving money to family is good when it's not money laundering, but if there are no limitations or barriers to transferring money, it becomes much harder to detect fraud and money laundering.

>Compound interest
That just means reinvesting the extra time value you got back from the original money you let someone borrow. Money is fungible by definition; how do you prevent people from using it fungibly?

>plutocracy is bad

niggah you gay

I believe in a laissez-faire mixed market.
Basically just National Socialism.

Attached: 55B7CE43-208D-49E0-9C97-FD191A7F3DF4.png (612x612, 298K)

You’re assuming that I:
A. Give a shit about the health of the country’s economy
B. Give a shit about the lives of the people in the country
And C. Don’t want laws passed preventing bribery, which I do.

Economics is a pseudoscience akin to water divining or homeopathy.

Attached: dlkjljflrnflkdlksjlksn.gif (480x270, 765K)

Kek. I’m extremely well educated, high iq and experienced in my field. People call me a master quite often and come to me for help. I will write a book soon. By now it’s obvious, even to me, that libertarianism is a Jewish meme to disarm the white goy, while the Jew organizes the non-white goys in communism. Liberalism is a movement completely designed to hurt the people who practice it.

Living a life of greed is not going to be very fulfilling. You’ll suffer the consequences.

That’s where you are wrong bucks. Librarians like you don’t get that librarian societies are easily rented out by financial capital. In other words, the economy will naturally shift from a land and production based economy to a financial economy completely dominated by Jews.
Read books faggot

I’m not greedy when it comes to my family and friends, but you’re neither, so I owe you nothing and feel obligated to give you nothing.

t. Poor nigger from some country whose flag I can’t even fucking recognize because of how irrelevant they are.

Why are you telling me to read when you don’t even have books where you’re from?

>I’m not greedy when it comes to my family and friends
You’re still greedy. You don’t have a place in society for the sole purpose of feeding your own selfish tendencies.

Compound interest is a problem because it grows exponentially. When compound interest is disallowed, it significantly decreases the long term values of loans. This is good because capital does not produce value, except in the case of a real business expansion (i.e. start-up costs, purchasing new machinery, renting a larger property, etc). Loans being more or less only useful to the one borrowing will diminish the amount of money locked up in debt. Less unnecessary debt is necessarily good for an economy. Labour is the source of value and usury wastes that value through compound interest.
>Give a shit about the health of the country’s economy
Then you should be kicked out of whatever nation you're in. You benefit from your nation and you should not take that for granted.
>Give a shit about the lives of the people in the country
That's unpatriotic and disgusting. Perhaps execution would be better than exile.
>Don’t want laws passed preventing bribery, which I do.
You have to like bribery if you want to give as much money as you want to whoever you want. You have no idea what you think and you are intellectually a mess.

You’re coming off as very whiny and entitled. I’m greedy because I feel no obligation to help you or give you resources? A very childish way of thinking, man.

Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe > Friedman/Hayek

>waaaaah you’re unpatriotic
Cry about it more, nigger.
You’re all Jew commies.

Attached: facism.jpg (1751x1022, 451K)

economics = scam
t. econ degree, should have done math stats

I'm a feudalist.
Everyone should be locked inside their home city, be allocated by its feudal lord to do daily activities which are required to remain self-sufficient, while enjoying all his free time with his childhood friends and life-long family

Of course you aren’t obligated to help others, but you said earlier you would go out of your way to fuck over others just for your own personal gain. That’s fucking greed.

Any book recs?

I never said that once, I didn’t even allude to that.

>What is Jow Forums take on economics?
If it's anti-White it will be heavily restricted if not illegal.

If it's pro-White it will be legal and/or provided/supplemented by the government.

I’m not saying you’re greedy for not helping others, I’m saying you’re greedy for hurting others in favor of yourself.

>milei fanboy trying to talk economics like he didn't find friedman last year

Yes you did:

Me not giving a shit about people doesn’t mean I’m actively going to go out of my way to harm them.

DISTRIBUTISM, FUCKING DUMB WIGGERS

Libertarianism is the most Jewish of all economic systems. You love bribery and usury. Both are extensively used by the Jews you hate. You love free trade. Marx, the most communist of them all, advocated for free trade. You have so little self awareness that you're an embarrassment to even the greediest corporate overlords.
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter
History of Economic Analysis by Joseph Schumpeter
Free Trade Doesn't Work by Ian Fletcher (I am halfway through, very comprehensive pickup if you're new to economics)
Debunking Economics by Steve Keen

I like the concept of libertarian economics but it’s by no means perfect. I’ve grown a bit more nationalistic in regards to economics so I may favor some protectionism, but that’s more geared towards our current system.
However I do see needs for regulation like companies giving to pacs and such, unions doing the same and all without giving equally to their worker/member base. Also things like farmer subsidies for corn and onions when it’s near worthless since we have too much of it. Then comes the tech companies working with foreign governments... big Nono in my book

Leave neo-classicals to me

Attached: steve_keen.jpg (400x400, 19K)

I understand how it works, my question is how do you propose restricting compound interest but not simple interest?

t. Homeless man posting from a public library
This is why I hate public services, they allow retards like you to have Internet

By making compound interest illegal. Simple interest is negligible. If you specify a date at which the loan must be repaid, the interest is part of the amount paid back. Penalties if the payment is overdue are not a problem because they do not increase exponentially. They increase at a fixed rate. This means that the penalties can be outgrown by natural business growth. Simple interest does not need to be made illegal.

Leave free-traders to me

Attached: ian fletcher.jpg (655x718, 37K)

Compound interest is just taking simple interest and reinvesting it. How do you make it legal to invest some money but illegal to invest other money, when money is fungible?

Id fill any economic department with a mixture of Chicago school and Austrian. The only time I get along with Keynesian is when arguing against socialist/communists/any asshole pushing labor theory of value.

Pass a law requiring interest to only be calculated from the principal. Very straight forward.

I really hate these fucking debates. Just get to fucking conclusion. I don't have the time to read 250 different authors which one with a different view.
If I were to get to the truth (or as close to it as I can) with only one author or book, which should it be?

canada is gay

I understand the urge to try and help people with programs but experience watching government only ever fuck things up and grow like cancer have made me pretty anti state. Like I wouldn't immediately kill the government roads program but Id like to see some tests set up allowing variations on private roads to be attempted. The entire wellfare state is pure poison and the only question is how big should the cuts be per year in an attempt to mitigate the disruption when its shut down. I feel especially bad for farmer who haven't seen a free market in decades since the government has been fucking with the food through tariffs and farm bills.

Joseph Schumpeter

Also here is a decent economics channel. Also gets a good dose of opinion on uk politics in the weekly live streams.

youtube.com/channel/UCyawG3aTE7RmNQcFQskDWcw

Any other good channels for econ?

I'm a neo-mercantilist. This isn't a thing yet, but it will be.

Nationalist libertarian, pretty much. Economic efficiency doesn't take priority over national strength because all the paper money in the world wont save you from an invasion by a superior force.

Free market is good as long as it benefits the nation. If it doesn't, it must be corrected or even discarded until the problem is fixed.

>I'm a neo-mercantilist.
you mean Keynesian

I don't think you understand the point of interest.

>Usury should be made illegal
based

Public goods should be publicly funded. The only problem with social programs is the management. They rarely improve when they get more money. An effectively managed social program will work as intended without requiring budget increases. Budget cuts are good in times of debt crises, but otherwise are not needed.
>Free market is good as long as it benefits the nation. If it doesn't, it must be corrected or even discarded until the problem is fixed.
Free trade never works. Even within a country, it causes issues between states.
Of course I understand the point of interest. The point of compound interest is to generate profit for the money-lender at zero cost. Compound interest is terrible. There's no good reason for it.

Voting against other people’s interest for your own gain is exactly that.

>Id fill any economic department with a mixture of Chicago school and Austrian
they are

I’d vote for the ability to do what I please as long as it doesn’t DIRECTLY infringe upon other’s rights. If that’s voting against other peoples’ interests then they can bite my ass.

this is shill thread

There shouldn't be public goods. Or at the very least the minimal. Only privately owned property has a chance of being properly managed.

propaganda has made you anti state. you would never even thought of the concept otherwise

I would rather put Karl Marx in charge of my economy than you. Communism is less destructive than pure greed.

top tier: austrian & chicago
shit tier: keynesians and commies

Most colleges teach Keynesian school.

It makes everything worse. Your putting more debt money than actual money Into the market, so someone has to come up short. Debt money is a Jewish scam that created untold amounts of inflation

Saying there shouldn't be public goods is as idiotic as saying there shouldn't be currency. Public goods exist, and must be managed.
>Only privately owned property has a chance of being properly managed.
Not true. If you make the managers of the public good personally accountable, they will manage it well.

Are you capable of doing anything other than crying and whining? You’re not even trying to hide that fact that you want gibs at this point, Jew.

Pure greed is just honestly. The thing is you need to stop the government from getting involved. Honest greed cannot do large harm without the force of government behind it. If you are an asshole offering a shit deal people will just choose not to take it. Until you take choice away. Private market cant do that.

>DIRECTLY
There’s the problem. You use this as a justification despite it hurting their rights anyways.