pull down to refresh
118 sats \ 11 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11h \ parent \ on: Most Economists Still Don't Understand How Inflation Is Destroying our Economy econ
I think there could be genuine fear of speaking in a way which sounds critical of the Fed, or sounds "coded right". Especially given the prevalence of fed economists in academia, as well as the fed being the largest employer of economists
But isn't criticizing the Fed barking up the wrong tree?
It's fiat that's broken, not the institutions that run it. They're just doing their job of fulfilling contradictory mandates.
reply
I'm sure that's real, but also most economists hold orthodox work in pretty high regard.
I was kind of wondering how claims like "Economists fail to understand..." should be evaluated. We have lots of specialties, after all. Should we all be up to speed on everything or is it a win for the profession if the specialists get their stuff right while the rest of us are clueless?
reply
What is the typical view of Mises, Hyaek, and Rothbard. I believe other than Rothbard they are respected in the profession right. Are most economists not familiar with their writings or do they just consider them qwacks?
I don't talk to economists except here but in my work Slack channels that talk about the financial markets I usually get one of two responses when I mention monetary inflation / fed policy. The people say they disagree but aren't equipped to explain why or these are qwacks out of date ideas long discredited. Then they cite the so called wildcat pre-FED years.
There are some gold standard Ron Paul folks but they are usually bitcoiners too and they are in the bitcoin channel I created.
The lack of curiosity about it blows my mind. It's especially crazy to me that people that complain the loudest about the problems created by money printing seem the least interested.
I have a theory that it's because it is faceless and bi-partisan. Much easier to sell it as a Trump or Biden problem instead of institutional.
Also the case in the state of California. Easier to sell Newsom as a root problem than decades of left wing and right wing interventions.
reply
Most economists haven't read much of anything that would be considered economic philosophy or that's older than about ten years prior to their PhD.
Yes, they view the Austrians as right-wing quacks. No, Hayek and Mises are not widely respected in the field. They are, however, well respected amongst economists who actually study the history and philosophy of economics. Those economists aren't held in high esteem either, though.
reply
Can confirm. My econ phd program had basically zero history. It was entirely technical. I became a better engineer than an economist, to be honest. I got better at being an economist after my phd program.
reply
There aren't many programs that have any economic history, as far as I know. There's George Mason, Chicago, and some of the Ivies.
reply
I kinda wonder what it would've been like to go to George Mason. That being said, I imagine that the technical skills I learned at my phd program are much better rewarded in the market, and thus was a safer choice.
reply
They have all the normal mainstream stuff too, but there's safety in choosing a program that doesn't draw professional side-eyes.
reply
yeah good point, even my preconceived notion that GMU only teaches unorthodox stuff is case in point
When they cite the "wildcat pre-fed years", do they have in mind the bank runs in It's a Wonderful Life? Because I have a feeling that that's what they have in mind, haha.
reply