Four Horsemen Economics Documentary

[jryan54]

So a few of you know that I have an economics degree (albeit unusued for MANY years). Someone sent me a link to the documentary by the "Renegade Economist" which purports to explain the current wealth inequality and states that the current form of capitalism that we have is not really any form of open markets (which I agree with).

Anyway, it was interesting hearing him talk about funny money injections into the economy and that those gains that flow down to the lower classes being eroded by inflation. Its something I had not really considered before when looking at circular flow in the economy.

I would be interested in hearing some views from those members that are part of the Austrian Economics School of though as to how they view this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU"]Four Horsemen - Feature Documentary - Official Version - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Moxie]

Only watched a little, but people like Chomsky and Max Keiser being interviewed is a sign that Austrian types would probably agree with some parts and disagree with other parts.


I'll leave this right here :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA5arwOq3jA]The Four Horsemen - It's an all night ride - YouTube[/ame]

 

[groneg]

 

[lukep]

I saw the first half over dinner and I have to say that quite a lot of this docco is quite legit for libertarians/anarchists... I actually enjoyed the evidence of the USA being in its' final death throws of a failed empire, and the emphasis on the free market being dead was great. There were some choice quotes in there too, like my boy Bastiat.

However, when they venture into the specifics of Economics, especially that bit where they described the difference between "classical" and "neoclassical" economics, it falls apart for Austrians, bigtime.

His portrayal of Milton Friedman & the Chicago school is painful to watch. Worse, he says absolutely nothing about the only important divide these days in economics; Keynesian verses Misean economics!

I would say there are two central concepts that are vital to this documentary's subject matter that the author simply does not understand:

1.) Keynesian economics is nothing but a prop for governments to legitimate their spending. Since they don't even mention Keynesian economics (at least by the halfway point) I have to assume they aren't seeing the big picture here.

2.) Positions of power are (i.e. government) themselves are the root of all these problems. Clearly the doc's writer simply cannot make it that last mental leap; stuck believing that some implementations of government are still acceptable.​

Of course Mises defended the states' existence too; so that more of Rothbard's viewpoint than Mises.

Ironically, Max Keiser's parts so far I have fully agreed with... But that man is one of the most annoying drama whores otherwise, and I just wish he'd stay the hell away from bitcoin most days.

I don't plan on watching the 2nd half, at least unless I find out that the author comes around to the more important themes of the subject he's talking about. -Or includes bitcoin into the conversation, either would make me tune in again.

Overall, I'm glad this video exists and won so many film fest awards; it's a pretty good stepping stone between the 99%ers/Occupy movement and the truth.

 

[pinchyfingers]

I don't feel like listening to Noam Chomsky, but I do want to hear what John Perkins has to say, so I'll probably watch it within the next week or two and take some notes.

 

[User9364]

I would be interested in hearing some views from those members that are part of the Austrian Economics School of though as to how they view this.

Four Horsemen - Feature Documentary - Official Version - YouTube

I like Austrian economics. And I'll spend the time to watch this, but can't do so immediately. But I have some initial thoughts...

I'm a trained economist... I don't say that as an appeal to authority, but just that I've seen academia, what they teach, and how they teach it. I'm surely no authority. But I do have a good understanding of statistics, optimization functions, econometrics, game theory, keynesian motivations, etc. I also have a good understanding of Austrian economics.

One thing that usually bothers me is that people think that "austrian economics" and "mainstream economics" are these two competing ideas. You, OP, may understand that, but a lot of people don't.

"Austrian economics" is mostly philosophy. It deals with logic. People mix up "mainstream economics" and "keynesian economics."

"keynesian economics" is somewhat of a philosophy in itself. It's an attempt at macro level control, and why such control is a good idea. "austrian economics" is usually opposed to that because market manipulation causes bubbles that pop. "Mainstream economics" is not the opposite of "austrian economics." For the most part, "mainstream economics" doesn't give a shit either way. "Mainstream economics" will collect data, parse it, and that data usually verifies "austrian economics" as true.

"Austrian" economists who rail against "mainstream" economists are usually slitting their own throats. They undermine people who will correctly verify their philosophy with real world math/data. Really, they should welcome such with open arms, but I guess philosophers will be philosophers.

 

[n8800]

That shit was boring.