Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Favorite School of Economics.

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:29:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

New Keynesian economics! Any day.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 6:12:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:29:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

New Keynesian economics! Any day.

Why do you say that?
Forthelulz
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:07:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

I like free-market monetarism too.
Now watch the rush of AP Macro kids.
=Chief Defenestrator=

#ImperiumAmerica

This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org...
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org...
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org...
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com...
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:42:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think its rather simplistic for one to just say im a subscriber to x school of economic doctrine. I prefer to just do whatever works.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:48:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

Where does the Chicago School of Economics go? That of Milton Friedman.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:48:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:29:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

New Keynesian economics! Any day.

Keynesian economics is a failure.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:49:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 6:42:23 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
I think its rather simplistic for one to just say im a subscriber to x school of economic doctrine. I prefer to just do whatever works.

Generally I agree with this, though there are nevertheless caveats.

Broadly speaking, there are two general views as to the cause of (most) recessions: a shortfall in aggregate demand (Keynesian) OR a maladaption of resources (Austrian). The former believes that wages and prices are sticky, and thus aggregate demand matters for short-run output fluctuations, and the latter thinks that prices can adjust rather rapidly to clear markets.

Now, taking a position on this debate may not land someone cleanly into one school or another, but it at least established a starting point. Thus, I don't think the discussion of "schools of thought" is entirely useless.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 6:49:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 6:42:23 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
I think its rather simplistic for one to just say im a subscriber to x school of economic doctrine. I prefer to just do whatever works.

Generally I agree with this, though there are nevertheless caveats.

Broadly speaking, there are two general views as to the cause of (most) recessions: a shortfall in aggregate demand (Keynesian) OR a maladaption of resources (Austrian). The former believes that wages and prices are sticky, and thus aggregate demand matters for short-run output fluctuations, and the latter thinks that prices can adjust rather rapidly to clear markets.

Now, taking a position on this debate may not land someone cleanly into one school or another, but it at least established a starting point. Thus, I don't think the discussion of "schools of thought" is entirely useless.

Nor do I believe it to be entirely useless, though I consider it to be far more beneficial to assume that recessions can be caused by either, if not both factors in economic situations. I find that most debates surrounding economic schools of thought lead to ingrained dogma in peoples thinking, without weighing the pros, cons and context in each individual case.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 6:48:57 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/16/2015 3:29:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

New Keynesian economics! Any day.

Keynesian economics is a failure.

A very enlightened and reasoned reply, which has contributed greatly to the current topic of discourse.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 6:55:48 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
Nor do I believe it to be entirely useless, though I consider it to be far more beneficial to assume that recessions can be caused by either, if not both factors in economic situations.

I think that's fair, though the qualifier is "most," and that gets to a fundamental question about labor market dynamics and the ease to which markets can adjust to shocks. The Austrian view is that markets adjust quickly unless the government makes it difficult to do so - minimum wage, trade unions, worker protections, etc. - so while I take your point, there is a fundamental difference in ideology, based on perception of fact, that guides these two diverging views.

I find that most debates surrounding economic schools of thought lead to ingrained dogma in peoples thinking, without weighing the pros, cons and context in each individual case.

Much of this is true, though I tend to think that a lot of that dogma has truth value: i.e., it can be proved either true or false. Either markets are efficient or they aren't, either people aren't spending enough or they are, etc.

I'll give you a good example: if the Austrian view were true, the inability for markets to adapt should lead to higher inflation. The AS curve should be vertical, and demand should have no impact on output, but only on inflation, and thus a policy like QE should have no impact on output, but should raise inflation and long-term interest rates. But that hasn't happened, so I see that less as an ideological battle than an assessment of reality. We can readily test these two world views and see which works in practice, and I think it's very clear which does.

Not to mention, I think most of the ideological points come from the Austrian side, whereby the government is *always* wrong to intervene, and that's a type of dogmatism in no way rivaled on the Keynesian side.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:12:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:01:18 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 6:55:48 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
Nor do I believe it to be entirely useless, though I consider it to be far more beneficial to assume that recessions can be caused by either, if not both factors in economic situations.

I think that's fair, though the qualifier is "most," and that gets to a fundamental question about labor market dynamics and the ease to which markets can adjust to shocks. The Austrian view is that markets adjust quickly unless the government makes it difficult to do so - minimum wage, trade unions, worker protections, etc. - so while I take your point, there is a fundamental difference in ideology, based on perception of fact, that guides these two diverging views.

I find that most debates surrounding economic schools of thought lead to ingrained dogma in peoples thinking, without weighing the pros, cons and context in each individual case.

Much of this is true, though I tend to think that a lot of that dogma has truth value: i.e., it can be proved either true or false. Either markets are efficient or they aren't, either people aren't spending enough or they are, etc.

I'll give you a good example: if the Austrian view were true, the inability for markets to adapt should lead to higher inflation. The AS curve should be vertical, and demand should have no impact on output, but only on inflation, and thus a policy like QE should have no impact on output, but should raise inflation and long-term interest rates. But that hasn't happened, so I see that less as an ideological battle than an assessment of reality. We can readily test these two world views and see which works in practice, and I think it's very clear which does.

Not to mention, I think most of the ideological points come from the Austrian side, whereby the government is *always* wrong to intervene, and that's a type of dogmatism in no way rivaled on the Keynesian side.

I agree with most of what you're saying here as well, I just think that is where the qualifier should come in and one loses the ideological baggage attached to a school of economic thought. As well as that one has to consider the fact that there are so many different schools of thought, behaviourism, institutionalism, schumpeterian, etc
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:12:31 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:01:18 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 6:55:48 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
Nor do I believe it to be entirely useless, though I consider it to be far more beneficial to assume that recessions can be caused by either, if not both factors in economic situations.

I think that's fair, though the qualifier is "most," and that gets to a fundamental question about labor market dynamics and the ease to which markets can adjust to shocks. The Austrian view is that markets adjust quickly unless the government makes it difficult to do so - minimum wage, trade unions, worker protections, etc. - so while I take your point, there is a fundamental difference in ideology, based on perception of fact, that guides these two diverging views.

I find that most debates surrounding economic schools of thought lead to ingrained dogma in peoples thinking, without weighing the pros, cons and context in each individual case.

Much of this is true, though I tend to think that a lot of that dogma has truth value: i.e., it can be proved either true or false. Either markets are efficient or they aren't, either people aren't spending enough or they are, etc.

I'll give you a good example: if the Austrian view were true, the inability for markets to adapt should lead to higher inflation. The AS curve should be vertical, and demand should have no impact on output, but only on inflation, and thus a policy like QE should have no impact on output, but should raise inflation and long-term interest rates. But that hasn't happened, so I see that less as an ideological battle than an assessment of reality. We can readily test these two world views and see which works in practice, and I think it's very clear which does.

Not to mention, I think most of the ideological points come from the Austrian side, whereby the government is *always* wrong to intervene, and that's a type of dogmatism in no way rivaled on the Keynesian side.

I agree with most of what you're saying here as well, I just think that is where the qualifier should come in and one loses the ideological baggage attached to a school of economic thought. As well as that one has to consider the fact that there are so many different schools of thought, behaviourism, institutionalism, schumpeterian, etc

This is fair. I'm not in favor of strict adherence to any school such that it becomes a sacrosanct dogma, though admittedly it sounds like that when economic events do comport with - as they have over the past six years - with one particular ideology.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:31:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:17:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:12:31 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:01:18 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 6:55:48 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
Nor do I believe it to be entirely useless, though I consider it to be far more beneficial to assume that recessions can be caused by either, if not both factors in economic situations.

I think that's fair, though the qualifier is "most," and that gets to a fundamental question about labor market dynamics and the ease to which markets can adjust to shocks. The Austrian view is that markets adjust quickly unless the government makes it difficult to do so - minimum wage, trade unions, worker protections, etc. - so while I take your point, there is a fundamental difference in ideology, based on perception of fact, that guides these two diverging views.

I find that most debates surrounding economic schools of thought lead to ingrained dogma in peoples thinking, without weighing the pros, cons and context in each individual case.

Much of this is true, though I tend to think that a lot of that dogma has truth value: i.e., it can be proved either true or false. Either markets are efficient or they aren't, either people aren't spending enough or they are, etc.

I'll give you a good example: if the Austrian view were true, the inability for markets to adapt should lead to higher inflation. The AS curve should be vertical, and demand should have no impact on output, but only on inflation, and thus a policy like QE should have no impact on output, but should raise inflation and long-term interest rates. But that hasn't happened, so I see that less as an ideological battle than an assessment of reality. We can readily test these two world views and see which works in practice, and I think it's very clear which does.

Not to mention, I think most of the ideological points come from the Austrian side, whereby the government is *always* wrong to intervene, and that's a type of dogmatism in no way rivaled on the Keynesian side.

I agree with most of what you're saying here as well, I just think that is where the qualifier should come in and one loses the ideological baggage attached to a school of economic thought. As well as that one has to consider the fact that there are so many different schools of thought, behaviourism, institutionalism, schumpeterian, etc

This is fair. I'm not in favor of strict adherence to any school such that it becomes a sacrosanct dogma, though admittedly it sounds like that when economic events do comport with - as they have over the past six years - with one particular ideology.

True, but even neoclassical synthesis has its faults, pareto improvement and free trade being one of them that comes first to mind.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:34:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:31:02 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:17:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:12:31 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:01:18 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/31/2015 6:55:48 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
Nor do I believe it to be entirely useless, though I consider it to be far more beneficial to assume that recessions can be caused by either, if not both factors in economic situations.

I think that's fair, though the qualifier is "most," and that gets to a fundamental question about labor market dynamics and the ease to which markets can adjust to shocks. The Austrian view is that markets adjust quickly unless the government makes it difficult to do so - minimum wage, trade unions, worker protections, etc. - so while I take your point, there is a fundamental difference in ideology, based on perception of fact, that guides these two diverging views.

I find that most debates surrounding economic schools of thought lead to ingrained dogma in peoples thinking, without weighing the pros, cons and context in each individual case.

Much of this is true, though I tend to think that a lot of that dogma has truth value: i.e., it can be proved either true or false. Either markets are efficient or they aren't, either people aren't spending enough or they are, etc.

I'll give you a good example: if the Austrian view were true, the inability for markets to adapt should lead to higher inflation. The AS curve should be vertical, and demand should have no impact on output, but only on inflation, and thus a policy like QE should have no impact on output, but should raise inflation and long-term interest rates. But that hasn't happened, so I see that less as an ideological battle than an assessment of reality. We can readily test these two world views and see which works in practice, and I think it's very clear which does.

Not to mention, I think most of the ideological points come from the Austrian side, whereby the government is *always* wrong to intervene, and that's a type of dogmatism in no way rivaled on the Keynesian side.

I agree with most of what you're saying here as well, I just think that is where the qualifier should come in and one loses the ideological baggage attached to a school of economic thought. As well as that one has to consider the fact that there are so many different schools of thought, behaviourism, institutionalism, schumpeterian, etc

This is fair. I'm not in favor of strict adherence to any school such that it becomes a sacrosanct dogma, though admittedly it sounds like that when economic events do comport with - as they have over the past six years - with one particular ideology.

True, but even neoclassical synthesis has its faults, pareto improvement and free trade being one of them that comes first to mind.

I'd agree with that.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:25:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

What are the key differences between Austrian economics and free market monetarism?

And what are the key differences between neo-Keynesianism and Keynesianism? And the differences between those and interventionist monetarism?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 1:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Neo-Keynesian Economics, probably.

This is only after little research, but this theory seems to explain WW2 very well. Aggregate demand appears to be the main cause, so I would go with this economic policy.
rolodopus
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 9:02:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 6:48:25 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

Where does the Chicago School of Economics go? That of Milton Friedman.

Certainly a monetarist but whether he was pro interventionism or free-market is subjective. Von Mises called him a 'bloody socialist' for supporting a guaranteed income and negative income tax! And yet, when compared to people like Krugman, Clinton, ect. he seems borderline anarchist.

I always used to be a monetarist but recently I've started drifting towards the Austrian school but, at the same time, I support a negative-income tax and government infrastructure in times of economic crisis to try and alleviate cyclical unemployment (despite it probably causing long-term economic loss.)

Because of this, I find it impossible to call myself a true Austrian, I think von Mises would call me a socialist too, but I'm certainly not a monetarist or Keynesian. I have always considered myself an economic liberal (or what Americans would call a libertarian) and don't tie myself down to particular schools of thought. But if I must choose one, put me in the Austrian school.
rolodopus
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 9:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 1:16:36 PM, Nac wrote:
Neo-Keynesian Economics, probably.

This is only after little research, but this theory seems to explain WW2 very well. Aggregate demand appears to be the main cause, so I would go with this economic policy.

I agree, the failures of Keynesian economics in the 1930s do go a long way to explaining the causes of WW2!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 11:38:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 2:07:52 PM, Forthelulz wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:31:24 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Choose from the following:
Austrian Economics
Free market monetarism
interventionist monetarism
neo-keynesianism

If you want a description of any of these, I will tell you about them.
My favorite is free market monetarism because I believe that the only place for government in the economy is in the currency.

I like free-market monetarism too.
: Now watch the rush of AP Macro kids.

I have arrived :D
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 7:56:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/6/2015 9:04:41 PM, rolodopus wrote:
At 6/6/2015 1:16:36 PM, Nac wrote:
Neo-Keynesian Economics, probably.

This is only after little research, but this theory seems to explain WW2 very well. Aggregate demand appears to be the main cause, so I would go with this economic policy.

I agree, the failures of Keynesian economics in the 1930s do go a long way to explaining the causes of WW2!

Actually, I meant to say that increasing aggregate demand aided our economic growth during the Great Depression. The statement I wrote in defense of this economic concept seems to be a repulsive mess in hindsight.

In revision, increasing aggregate demand under FDR seems to neatly explain our ability to overcome the Great Depression. The synthesis of this system with Neo Classical models created the Phillips Curve and the IS/LM model, which appear to be positives. Thus, I have arrived at the conclusion I created.

By all means, scrutinize my statements. This is most likely a pitiful attempt to grasp macroeconomics, because I am an absolute neophyte on this subject.