Hasn't worked for me very well... Maybe I should try to be less trollishly condescending?

Maybe it's because you aren't considering the other side (as someone else pointed out later). You're just covering your ears, shouting 'nah nah!' and repeating the same argument over and over again.

Essentially, you've asked "why is Rothbard wrong". I've given a well thought out argument--I've provided my reasoning for all to see, and dispute if you have an issue with it.

Instead, we get an appeal to (pseudo) Authority--here's what some guy on mises.org said!

It's just rehashing what you've said earlier, and the author is wrong for the same reasons as outlined earlier.

At least in this case (unlike the Federal Reserve gaffe you made) you were able to point to *something* as an appeal to authority or as a citation.

I'd also add "and listen to and think about the answer".

I think he sort of did what you said a bit earlier, but when he received a reply (to "why is Rothbard wrong"), I didn't see anything from him either saying I was correct or giving a reason that I was wrong (other than 'some other guy on mises.org--who was just regurgitating Rothbard perhaps--said it too!)

No way. Trollish condescension has positive externalities for all the people who get to read it, and the IQ gains from conversation are temporary.

OmahaFanatic,

Here is a blog post from a fairly radical lover of capitalism and markets:

Please to calm down about the minimum wage

Someone stealing an idea of mine doesn't actually raise their IQ even if it does temporarily boost the average IQ of ideas they use for a certain time period. I'm also not especially interested in making dullards look smarter. I will continue with my current approach

lol'd

I believe you should always start with philosophy. Philosophy is the foundation for every science and a lot of mistakes are made because people take philosophy for granted and don't examine the foundations of their prefered science.

Think about questions such as:

"Why do I want to understand economy? What do I want to do with my knowledge"? (Many would say in order to promote growth, for the business or the national economy you are associated with, but I don't agree with this goal at all)

"What is economics about, really?" (It's far from obvious!)

"What is causality?" (Super-important question and I believe most economists have a very wrong conception of it)



So I would recommend starting with some works on the philosophy of science. I think critical realism provides the best framework for understanding our world, including the social world. Roy Bhaskars "A realist theory of science" and "The possibility of naturalism" are important works. Andew Colliers "Critical realism" is a great introduction.

For the philosophy of economics i recommend Cambridge professor Tony Lawsons "Reorienting economics". It questions the philosophical foundations of orthodox economics from a critical realist perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/Reorienting-Ec.../dp/0415253357

This is good. I hope Rupert_Giles hangs on in this forum. We need an honest to goodness lefty in here. So far all we have is moderate people who actually have an econ background and random internet people who read mises.org. I look forward to arguing with the other side for a change.

Paul Krugman reviews "The Living Wage" here:

http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html

Greg Mankiw blog posts on the subject:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/search?q=minimum+wage

Don Boudreaux's thoughts on the minimum wage:

http://cafehayek.com/2013/02/thought...imum-wage.html

Matthew Yglesias considers the pros and cons of a minimum wage increase:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...imum_wage.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/..._increase.html

I thought of http://economistsview.typepad.com/ because of another thread, and while it's a bit advanced might not be a bad thing to read. It's a daily--or more frequent--collection of blogs and writings by economists from most, if not all ends of the spectrum.

Referring to Krax as anything remotely credible with regards to economics just goes to show how terrible and laughable this forum has become (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...3&postcount=43, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=52). It really wasn't that long ago when this forum had people who actually understood economics and would explain it in detail. Only thing even remotely close as of recent is the QE3 thread started by boro where Zygote was also posting a lot in it (clearly he got tired of wasting his time as well), but aside from that the credible posters on the board don't have the energy to refute the same tired arguments. I've read the back and forth debates from both sides of the aisle and it's evident who actually understands what they're talking about and who just wants to refer to textbooks without thinking critically for themselves. I also didnt waste time reading posts past this point and during the scroll to the bottom could tell I wasn't missing out on much from the screennames I saw making frequent posts.

boobies,

what do you think about steelhouse?
---

also, are you referring to lirva (pro AE and pro Milton Friedman, even though both contradict each other)? Borodog (he and his wife make a living off libertarian movement while critiquing economists' incentives)? Steel (just has to be a troll)? Omaha (anti new keynesians without any idea wtf they talk about. Funnily just yesterday I read a paper written by freaking Brad DeLong saying that New Keynesians might just as well be called New Monetarists, pointing out that they follow Friedman's work)? You (anti appeal to authority, which is fine, but you are writing off appeal to knowledge and intelligence as ******ed with the same one stroke, actually pointing out my desire to become knowledgeable as weakness, which says more about you than anything)? Country Roads (lol Paul Krugman)? Zygote ("You can also delve into more modern schools like the behaviorlists and get into game theory and such. if you wanna do econmetrics as mentioned its good to try find a book on math for economists that'll give you the basic skills you need on that front"....I'm not sure where to begin, jesus christ (game theory is not modern and it's basically equal to studying micro, math for economists has nothing to do with econometrics and metrics are irrelevant to an outsider trying to learn basic econ. He was also incapable of naming anything above freshman year econ)).

--

thanks for linking those posts, pretty decent argument against you. The only thing missing is a link to some youtube channel

OP, one thing that really helps is to think through economics from first principles yourself. Start with a one man economy, then add people, add the exchange of goods and services, add technology, add a bank, add money, add credit, add a second and third community using different money.

In your developing scenario, keep asking questions about how standard of living changes, what wealth is, how can a contract be enforced, and so on and so on.

You will be surprised at how wrong your initial ideas have been once you start reading economic theory, but you will have a framework to think about the ideas in that economic theory.

Take Obama's recent suggestion of a $9 an hour minimum wage. I live in Peru, and my first thought was: $9 x 40hrs x 50 weeks = $18k.

2011 average GDP per capita at PPP was $12k.

Does that mean that the lowest paid US citizen is 50% more productive than the average person in the world?

What would that mean for feasibility, sustainability? If the US has to pay more than a doctor earns here in Peru for even the least skilled worker, what does that say about the viability of US industry and the prospects for new business and industry starts in the USA?

What data do I need to even think about how I could answer these questions? How can I get the answers from the available data?

I'm not answering my questions here, just suggesting a complementary way of learning economics. Not instead of the sources people have suggested here, but in addition to them.

That's false parity. The cost of living in the US is (presumably) higher than it is in Peru. You should instead look at it as US GDP per capita is 48k... so 18k/48k=37.5%. The equivalent minimum wage in Peru would be 4.5k. Alternatively you could examine how much 1k buys you in Peru vs the US. In the US for example a nice 1 bedroom apartment costs around 1k per month. That means reasonable middle class housing for 1-2 people costs the GDP per capita of Peru.

I'm guessing housing and every other non global commodity based service in Peru costs less. I'm also guessing food costs less as well. (Even if it's just because Peruvians buy less processed food in general)

EDIT: If Peruvian doctors make less than US minimum wage that would be a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Here we have to pay for our doctors making 150k-2.5M depending on their specialty. That cost gets passed on to us. You can barely survive comfortably as a single person in the US on 9/hr. If you have kids you're on welfare programs and still live in poverty. Perhaps not third world poverty, but certainly lower than is remotely comfortable.

SECOND EDIT: Also spending in $ != resource consumption. Most dollars are spent on other people's time... which last time I checked was a renewable resource. Additionally a significant % of total US resource consumption comes from our own real estate (the quality of that real estate is one of the real secrets of our success, people who believe in American exceptionalism not withstanding)

I agree it's a false parity. Pretty much all PPP figures have serious problems.

Last year I considered moving back to the UK and calculated that I needed $184k a year to maintain the standard of living I have here in Peru where I live on less than $30k a year.

Similar size and quality housing, kids into the best private schools, private healthcare, cigarettes, booze and transport all at the same level are all items which fall well outside the PPP calculations.

Here I pay $3,500 per child in school fees for superb bilingual private education in beautiful surroundings and buildings. In the UK I'd be min $20k per child.

Cigarettes are $1.50 a pack here and $12 in the UK.

Of course there's no way of adding in quality differences in for example Health Care to my calculations, and there's no way to price the value of living in a truly free country as opposed to the elected tyranny they now have in the UK.

Nonetheless, the PPP figures do indicate a general equivalent price level and serve as a decent first approximation. Certainly in the US, you need to generate $18k of productivity to pay someone $18k - unless the money is borrowed

A useful economic exercise is to try to identify why a US barber earns $25 for giving a haircut (at the same skill level) and a Peruvian barber earns $2. Thinking through all the factors at this micro level points to lots of macro issues.

I've spent enough time in other threads already addressing your appeal to authority strawman and for the most part mangling every point you made here already. It's not a rejection of knowledge and intelligence, it's a rejection of calling close minded rubber stamped indoctrination knowledge. Sorry that I don't respect your fledgling econ major credentials. Everything else you wrote is just the same tired spin. If someone actually comes to the conclusion that your posts are more knowledgeable/intelligent than those of Boro/Zygote for example, then good for them. The reality, however, is pretty clear to me.

It's pretty amazing that some people can call other close minded while at the same time (or just a few posts before) the list of people that they consider good and knowledgeable posters consists entirely of people that happen to subscribe to their narrow worldview. And who attack and troll people who don't agree with them (in order to get them to leave so they can have their echo chamber?)

I can't speak for others, but I do believe there are good posters who are ACist and good posters who are more mainstream. And there are definitely bad posters on both sides too.

I hate to call you out... but who is the good ACist poster? I might not be remembering one, but out of the crowd who post in here regularly....

Well, I think I would agree a bit with b4m, that the good AC posters have generally left.

But a while ago, I remember a few that could actually describe and argue for their positions (rather than just cite mises/Rothbard continually), actually listen to what the other side is saying and generally argue in a coherent manner. Yeah, there were the usual redefinitions (or wanting to go back to definitions of 40+ years ago) but those were few and far between.

Now, from the usual posters we get links to youtube, mises.org, cites of Rothbard, no critiques of what the other side is saying, attacks on work from the 30's as if it is current economic thought, and while at the same time acknowledging that they know nothing about new Keynesianism, it MUST be just like the original theory. Or claims that with $1000, a (member) bank can just loan out $10,000 if they choose, and when asked for a citation the person making that claim quietly slinks away (ok, that's happened in the past too).

So if you want a current or recently active good AC poster, there really aren't any. I know there have been some in the past though.

I haven't spent too much time studying economics (own a few books, read parts of some. Read some Ayn Rand too but her books are far more philosophy based than anything.)

That being said I think it's ridiculous the way Keynesian will bash Austrians as nuts, and Austrians won't even consider just how much infighting there is within the school - which shows that there are clear logical fallacies.

Of course I don't mean everybody who advocates one or the other school is like that. I just think Keynesians and Austrians fight just to fight. Argue, by all means. But it usually devolves into "I have different views on economics, and I don't like your assumptions so you're an idiot."

There are huge flaws in both schools of thought, and although I lean towards Autrian views I think it's ridiculous. Someone at the beginning said to avoid the Austrian school like the plague (or something similar.)

Don't do that. Read a big variety. I'm no expert, but I'll assure you that Keynes had a lot of things wrong. Newer Keynsianists ideas are hugely flawed. I don't have to study economics that much to know that lots of inflation is bad for me. (Not saying all Keynesian want huge inflation, but at least some do.) I also don't have to study hard to see that Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalist ideas are not based on what's optimal, but at many times just possible. Although he argues that without the monopolization of force, many parts of life would be far better, standards of living would increase, etc. I tend to agree, but I also don't think he addressed the aspects of life which would actually be worse without government. For that reason I'm saying that the Austrian and Keynesian schools are filled with people fighting with each other because they can't see that their theories are generally both filled with holes.

I think if you're going to pick a specific part of economics to AVOID, it would be the extremists within the schools. Krugman's a nut. Rothbard was too. Obviously I like one's work more than the others, but that doesn't mean that I agree wholeheartedly with the guy whose school of thought I lean towards.

Just FYI, I am NOT a Keynesian (I didn't think you implied it, but I wanted to be clear). While perhaps on this board "Keynesians" bash Austrians as nuts, that doesn't really happen in the field. Things are a fair amount more amorphous--and if the Austrians happen to have a good idea, it will be absorbed into the mainstream. It's happened before.

On this board, maybe. In the profession it's a lot more civilized than that. Perhaps its because usually in the real world people on the Austrian side make coherent arguments that are grounded in reality. On this board it seems like they're based in appeals to youtube or (frankly, pretty horrible) mises.org articles.

I'm not sure anyone said that in particular. I think someone said avoid Rothbard (and you do below as well), and it's good to avoid him--and I agree with you as well to avoid Krugman--he's become a parody. Of something.

I know I said to read ACist stuff, but to not take their claims of what the mainstream says as face value. I think mises.org and some of the youtube videos misrepresent mainstream econ. I've seen it with trying to "debunk" Keynes' original work, talking about comparing utilities (when it's actually surplus), not understanding externalities while strenuously arguing against their existence, and so on.

I don't know of any economist, not just limiting it to the Keynesian schools, who wants huge/lots of inflation. Unless you're defining 1-3% inflation as 'huge'. I don't think you are.

I can think of one possibility, and that is in the 'standard' keynesian model if there are supply shocks then there is a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. But even then, it's not that Keynesians want inflation, it's just that they would argue the alternative--high unemployment--is worse.

Does this include Hayek on knowledge and Kirzner (and Schumpeter if you consider him Austrian) on entrepreneurship?

I suggest you don't listen to avoid XYZ talk and form your own opinions.
For Austrian economics:
"Economics in One Lesson" is the classic starting point (easy/fun to read) and "Man,Economy and State" is the natural progression ("textbook")

For mainstream...I only really care about the micro stuff. There's some good more technical textbooks but I think Mankiw's "Principles of Microeconomics" is actually the best intro

(I'd also recommend "Thinking, Fast&Slow" + "Predictably Irrational" as a soft/pop intro to Behavioural Economics)

(Best layman game theory introduction is working through "The Complete Strategyst" imo)

It's condensed Austrian macro (if such a thing exists) but I think it's a pretty good book for non-Austrians as well. I think his sections on Keynes and Monetarism are pretty decent introductions. The PPT slides on his site are pretty solid as well, the stuff on Keynes is very solid for preparation for Macro 1 as taught at most Euro-universities.
tl;dr: If you're an open minded mainstream economist this is def. one of the Austrian books you should get. It's framed for a mainstream econ audience (while I'm at the topic of Austrian books that might interest the mainstream economist def. get all the Kirzner books as well, his stuff on markets/prices "Market Theory and the Price System" might surprise you it's def not lolAustrianbabbling and looks way more than a mainstream book)

You mention you're an undergrad (I'm assuming in economics). I suggest you change your general outlook and approach a bit.
Well I guess as a "modern macro" guy you like to aggregate.

Why does something have to be hard to be worth reading anyways? That's almost like a labour cost of value type of argument.
Ether way I think there are plenty of non-trivial works in the Austrian canon. Hayek's "Pure Theory of Capital" (partly due to his writing style imo), Kirzner's work in general and fully understanding Hoppe is a pretty daunting task as well (mostly because understanding the Kant and Habermas base isn't exactly trivial)

I also think that while LvM is easy to read he's kind of hard to master. I'd say it takes a couple of months to really absorb and understand "Human Action" and "Theory of Money and Credit"

His "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economics Thought" is a brilliant work of scholarship and highly regarded among the mainstream economists I know (that know it). Most of them are fairly intelligent (despite being economists!).

I think MES is also a great book (essentially a more accessible "Human Action") but I suppose we'll never agree because I believe in a science (I'm an academic right now) where you try to separate what you think about a person from their actual contribution. Even if you completely disagree with his stance on ethics and so forth I think it's really hard to not come away with anything but respect for the scientific (research etc.) work he put into "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economics Thought"

As a German I always think it's pretty amusing how Samuelson is regarded this highly. Grab some of his old editions and check out his assessment of the German Democratic Republic (or his predictions of Soviet growth outpacing the US)

Couple that with the old Friedman classic on methodology which praises the old "all hail to predictions" that still tends to be the guiding beacon of mainstream methodology and you get an interesting picture.

Basically Samuelson was dead wrong on his predictions.

Anything produced by someone who was capable of so completely committing to Anarcho Capitalism is basically fruit of the poisoned tree. Basically while it is possible for someone to be right with horrific methodology, it really isn't useable, because if you continue with their methodology and attempt to extrapolate from where they were right you'll end up somewhere bat**** crazy.

You correctly assume that I do not know Rothbards book on the history of economic thought. What I've read of his was excrement. Literally. There was absolutely nothing rational about any of it. Science literally doesn't enter into it. It was just pure nuttery. Like Ayn Rand level nuttery.

As for your statements about Samuelson... At the time he made those predictions they made a lot more sense. In retrospect we know that the economic data coming out of the Soviet Union was cooked, but it's important to realize that smart people in the West still thought the Soviets were competing with us economically almost until the end. Hindsight is 20/20. Where Samuelson was wrong he's STILL more useful than the guys you're defending... Because you can extrapolate from his wrong answers and end up somewhere useful. In other words feed his models correct data and they generate decent results for the time period.

As for Hayek he was right about a lot during his lifetime and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I've read a lot of his work (what I've gotten around to) and found it usually quite reasonable.