Mankiw's Ten Principles of Economics, Translated by Yoram Bauman, Ph.D. - Ep 27

[jormoria]

a Jewish economist,like my professor(s)

[duckielover151]

Does he remind anyone else of Richard Belzer? O.o That's what I think everytime I see him!

[IonutQo22]

I had a really hard time struggling to understand and comprehend what he was saying.

[paxpakspax]

Oh I see.

[selfrealizedexile]

Ask yourselves how it is natural scientists decade after decade come out with breakthroughs in both theory and experiment yet Economics, as practiced by the establishment, only succeeds in recycling old mercantilist fallacies. It's no accident; there's a reason for that. Any sincere truth-seeker eventually discovers why and, consequently, abandons Keynesian theory.

/watch?v=ry8a_SbA25M

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile Well, we did abandon the Gold Standard and soon enough we'll have learned not to peg currencies to each other. I consider that to be the breakthrough of the 20th century. Landing on the moon was nothing compared to fiat currency.

[selfrealizedexile]

used for a positivistic test. And since it is unique, it cannot be combined with other events in the form of statistical correlations and achieve any meaningful result." -- Murray N. Rothbard, Preface of Mises' "Theory and History"

I wonder who has the greater appreciation of Philosophy of Science. This is coming from a future Physicist. The vast majority of people who purport to do "Science" are doing nothing of the sort. Establishment economists disgrace natural scientists.

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile I agree that Establishment Economists disgrace their subject! But Austrians do too. They keep saying how they predicted this and that and they don't even have proper models for the economy, but rely only on theses. The Austrian school is, like the Chicago school, just a political tool. The Chicago school for neoliberalism and the Austrian school for anarchism.

[selfrealizedexile]

""It is just as well that economic theory does not need testing. For it is impossible to test it in any way by checking its propositions against homogeneous bits of uniform events for there are no such events. The use of statistics and quantitative data may try to mask this fact, but their seeming precision is only grounded on historical events that are not homogeneous in any sense. Each historical event is a complex, unique resultant of many causal factors. Since it is unique, it cannot be

[mentalrectangle]

austrian economics is to the science of economics what freudian psychoanalysis is to the science of psychology. which is to say it rejects scientific investigation outright as one of its core principles

[selfrealizedexile]

@mentalrectangle

Not really--the Austrian school's methodological position is that you can't effectively apply the Scientific Method to society. It is they who truly understand the Philosophy of Science while the Keynesians have endured with a "science" muddled with countless confounding variables for several decades. Grow up and read Mises' "Theory and History." I've never met a sincere person who was also Keynesian because all sincere people who study Economics eventually become Austrian.

[TheAttackRat]

SOCIALISM = creationism

KEYNESIAN = Intelligent design

AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS = Evolution

... don't be a Keynesian fool

>>> watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo <<<

[freedomthrough]

@TheAttackRat No actually, it's:

Keynesianism = Don't leave things to something invisible, but fix things yourself.

Austrian Economics = Leave everything to something invisible and everything is gonna be fine (the invisible hand, a.k.a. the central planner at the end of time, a.k.a. god).

Don't be an Austrian fool.

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

What exactly is invisible about billions of market actors acting every second of every day, organizing production through price signaling? The only fool is someone who thinks that kind of dynamic can be planned by a central organization.

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile No Keynesian wants planning of the entire economy, friend. All the Keynesians i know advocate mixed economies and thus far, they're the most successful in building societies and reducing inequalities.

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

Don't be duplicitous; Keynesianism is not fixing things "yourself." Keynesianism is coercively forcing the market to do something it doesn't want to. Keynesianism is hijacking the money supply and sending false signals (as even conceded by its proponents) to market actors. This can hardly be called a 'DIY' as one might fix one's sink.

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile The market doesn't have a will, mate. It has no self. Demand leads the way, so why shouldn't we fine-tune it to do what we consider is best for society? And yes, it can actually be called that. The market will never be perfect and it will never be certain. It will always be unstable and plagued by imperfect competition, so clearly, anyone who feels government should be responsible for anything would want the government to fix the core distributive engine of society.

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

Let's just dispense with the formalizations. The market is simply everyone. In usurping a free market through Keynesian manipulation, you're simply acting as a fascistic State, limiting what once free men could do. Thus, Keynesians are nothing but whores for the fascists--priests of the State, as Rothbard called it, apologizing for State rule as the Church did for European kings in exchange for grants to rationalize theft and their own self-importance.

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile The market is inherent in humans, yes. The market brings coercion and violence of massive scale, though, and thus it needs to be under control. Now, i don't want a command economy any more than you do, but i understand how a fiat monetary system works and the power it gives a democratic society as a whole. I advocate the use of that power for the common weal. Taxes aren't theft, as their role in todays system is merely regulation of purchasing power.

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

"The market brings coercion and violence..."

You should provide an example before you skip to the conclusions you already want to come to. How very unscientific.

A mixed economy is a phrase highlighting logical inconsistency. Either the market is logically coherent and should be utilized everywhere or it should not be and be completely abolished as the Marxists want.

The standard of living and real wages of the poor and middle class has been eroding further and further

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

under such a mixed economy. How can we claim it to be more equitable and desirable to the poor? What helps the poor is lower prices. Prices only get lower through deflation through higher productivity.

You can't "fine tune" the "demand" (as if it the demands of billions of people could even be aggregated) to your end. You will only fail as the countless others who came before you when their own economy eventually collapsed.

You should restudy what competition actually is.

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

Look up the Austrian definition of competition. It is not simply visible competition but the mere ability to enter the market. The mere prospect of competition to a producer can itself provide adequate incentives. You also ofc have to sift out what industries are actually free to compete and aren't hijacked by gov't intervention, needless to say.

True understanding isn't derived from "models"; true understanding is awareness of causal relationships. Descartes understood

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

this and it's why he successfully predicted that a culture within Science would develop that worshiped models and its appearance of sophistication over true understanding. This scientistic, not scientific, culture has a stranglehold on the economics profession and is why economists have such a low report with common society. Common society view their analysis as counter-intuitive to everyday economic decision-making like a businessman would, but yet hold natural scientists

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

much higher because they see their work and theories actually leads to real progress--televisions, computers, space travel, new medicines, etc.. Now, this is not to invoke the ad populum fallacy but it acts to highlight the reason why, and this reason stems from methodology. The Austrians are far and away more sophisticated that most people understand. They seek understanding of causal relationships through Praxeology and deduction from there. You owe it to yourself to

[selfrealizedexile]

@freedomthrough

restudy Economics atop a much stronger philosophic foundation. I'd recommend you at least finish the very short video I posted earlier: /watch?v=ry8a_SbA25M

I'm glad you're aware that the Austrian school advocates Anarchism (specifically Anarcho-Capitalism), but they do so not because they simply desire it for unrelated reasons and use economics as their tool, but because the conclusions reached from true economic scholarship demanded it. It is the truly free economy.

[sponsoredwalk1]

You don't need a Ph.D in economics to understand these 10 principles,

all you need to do is read the first chapter of the book to realise

how basic these are.

[ArtsandLetters70]

@sponsoredwalk1 Evidently not, or most folks would insist on rather different economic policies and make saner decisions in their own lives. Good book!

[sponsoredwalk1]

1: tradeoffs: that an economy would trade military funds for social funds

& how outrageous this is.

2: Opportunity Cost: Go to college or get a job, is it worth it?

3: You wake up in the morning & decide to sleep 1 extra hour, not sleep another 8!

4: Raising airline tickets could cause MORE people to die in car crashes.

5: Free trade works for everyone, EXCEPT Chile, Russia, Brazil, Iceland :p

[sponsoredwalk1]

6: Compared to central plnning ala Communist Russia, markets look like heaven.

When free market economies become centralized, (as they inevitably do), we just

bail them out & ignore it.

7: When free markets have gone awry like in Chile in 1982 the Gov bails them out.

When unregulated banks mess economies up, like Ireland & Greece, we bail them out.

8: The idea is that living standard is solely determined by output. Solely!

I have to ask 3rd world economies whose sweatshops clothe

[sponsoredwalk1]

a good proportion of the first world is that is the case. 9: Too much money causes inflation. This means the idea that 'you too can become a high roller if you just work hard enough' is false, people have to be poor - it's inbuilt. 10: Philip's curve illustratin the idea that to reduce inflation unemployment levels must rise. The idea is that unemployment will eventually end in the long run, but if people are made homeless in the meantime it's ok - it'll all end well :p

[selfrealizedexile]

2. The true "cost" of something is not what you give up. There is no objective value.

5. Free trade apodictically ALWAYS makes everyone better off.

7. Gov'ts can NEVER improve a market for the same reason a market will always improve participants.

8. So we then go on to argue for boosting aggregate demand and, thereby, distort market signals and capital consumption?

10. Still waiting for the Keynesian solution to stagflation. The market eventually saves them from needing one.

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile 10. It's pretty simple really, and it's called targeted demand.

[freedomthrough]

@selfrealizedexile 10. Also, stagflation, as it happened in the 70's, was largely driven by supply-shock inflation. Pretty much unavoidable, if you ask me.

[naturalnchic1]

even in europe we are using this book

[javadzadeh00]

@naturalnchic1 same, we use Mankiw at uni in Edinburgh

[henrimoufettal]

Thanks for this guy showing the irrationnality of economics, a field which tried to explain rationally our world. in fact still trying to explain why economics would be a useful subject while depending on the viewer, it looks totally useless

[DavidUmstattd]

The other video is much funnier.

[Manik2Magik]

@DavidUmstattd Yeah. The 15 second thing screwed with his timing.

[swerdna1970]

i was led to believe this would be funny?

[somercet1]

This version is funnier: VVp8UGjECt4

Also make sure you google "marginal revolution" to understand point 3.

[mataderaElComienzo]

Principios de Economía. Sería mejor si el mismo Mankiw lo explicaze.

[SanctuarySurvivor]

@ Flatcy, are you sure? You might just be thinking irrationally.

[FLATCY]

uh oh irrational is not the same as stupid....

[Womenlol1]

Hello