3 ms·

It's fine to call me and Rothbard and other proponents of Austrian economics kooks, if that does it for you. But where's your counter example? What book should

It's fine to call me and Rothbard and other proponents of Austrian economics kooks, if that does it for you. But where's your counter example? What book should I read to become enlightened? If I was curious enough to read Rothbard's book from 1963, don't you think I'd at least consider your recommendation? If you can find me a Keynesian who can explain a systemic financial crisis without ringing their hands and shouting "Capitalism is reckless and greed causes financial crises!" than I'll consider their ideas. But a systemic problem demands a systemic explanation. Austrians give us monetary policy. Keynesians give us greed. I'm not going to simply side with the Keynesians because they have the dominant view. I'm not built that way. I need a better explanation than hand wringing and worship of Piketty.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>But a systemic problem demands a systemic explanation. Austrians give us monetary policy. Keynesians give us greed. Keynesians give regulation. If you're unwilling to consider the ideas of someone who believes that capitalism is reckless, that greed does cause financial crises and that regulation is an answer, then why are you asking for a book recommendation? You should also note that I believe in regulated markets not socialism or communism. There are a million shades of gray here. >I need a better explanation than hand wringing and worship of Piketty. Have you read Piketty? I'm going to recommend two books which should be a gentle introduction to my viewpoint: 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Economism: Bad Economics and the Rise of Inequality by James Kwak EDIT: I'd also note that one of the things that frustrates me most is to see the politicization of economics. The misuse of economic terminology to advocate a specific political viewpoint is exactly what mises and similar institutions engage in and it leads to a group of the public who believes that they're educated in economics when they're actually just inculcated to a political worldview. If you read those books and still disagree, that's fine but just think about whether it's an intelligent disagreement. I've run into so many individuals who know Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, maybe Hoppe and no one else. People who explain to me all about how supply and demand lead to market clearing but don't know a single model other than "the free market model" (actually the perfectly competitive model) and definitely don't know its assumptions. People who have never read an empirical/econometric study of economics that did not come with an easy synopsis from a blog they read(and agree with). These people do not know economics, they know politics.
- padobson 9y ago
  Your argument against the mixing of politics and economics seems reasonable to me, and I am definitely going to read your suggestions and reach out for further discussion. I'd like to see a separation of politics and economics too, I just think that's sort of a utopian ideal. What I really want is a separation of coercion and economic opportunity. Pre-Fed, most concentrations of wealth were driven by private-sector coercion - industrialists like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller coerced both their competition and their labor force, which is as equally distasteful to me as government coercion leading to concentrations of wealth. Anyway, I'll get back to you. Do you have some social media or email address I can reach out after I've read your suggestions?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Unfortunately I'm one of those guys so I keep all my profiles firewalled. I do post several econ stories to HN every morning so you'll definitely be able to find me.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>But a systemic problem demands a systemic explanation. Austrians give us monetary policy. Keynesians give us greed. Keynesians give regulation. If you're unwilling to consider the ideas of someone who believes that capitalism is reckless, that greed does cause financial crises and that regulation is an answer, then why are you asking for a book recommendation? You should also note that I believe in regulated markets not socialism or communism. There are a million shades of gray here. >I need a better explanation than hand wringing and worship of Piketty. Have you read Piketty? I'm going to recommend two books which should be a gentle introduction to my viewpoint: 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Economism: Bad Economics and the Rise of Inequality by James Kwak EDIT: I'd also note that one of the things that frustrates me most is to see the politicization of economics. The misuse of economic terminology to advocate a specific political viewpoint is exactly what mises and similar institutions engage in and it leads to a group of the public who believes that they're educated in economics when they're actually just inculcated to a political worldview. If you read those books and still disagree, that's fine but just think about whether it's an intelligent disagreement. I've run into so many individuals who know Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, maybe Hoppe and no one else. People who explain to me all about how supply and demand lead to market clearing but don't know a single model other than "the free market model" (actually the perfectly competitive model) and definitely don't know its assumptions. People who have never read an empirical/econometric study of economics that did not come with an easy synopsis from a blog they read(and agree with). These people do not know economics, they know politics.

padobson 9y ago
Your argument against the mixing of politics and economics seems reasonable to me, and I am definitely going to read your suggestions and reach out for further discussion. I'd like to see a separation of politics and economics too, I just think that's sort of a utopian ideal. What I really want is a separation of coercion and economic opportunity. Pre-Fed, most concentrations of wealth were driven by private-sector coercion - industrialists like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller coerced both their competition and their labor force, which is as equally distasteful to me as government coercion leading to concentrations of wealth. Anyway, I'll get back to you. Do you have some social media or email address I can reach out after I've read your suggestions?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Unfortunately I'm one of those guys so I keep all my profiles firewalled. I do post several econ stories to HN every morning so you'll definitely be able to find me.