pull down to refresh
83 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb \ on: What's the Austrian perspective on needing the ability to increase money supply? econ
One of Mises' most famous contributions to economic theory was his explanation for why any quantity of specie (above some threshold of divisibility) is sufficient to facilitate economic activity.
Hayek's Nobel Prize was for his demonstration of artificial credit expansion being the cause of business cycles.
Modern economies do not need fiat, although they may need a medium that is easier to use than gold/silver. What does require fiat are bloated modern states.
Exactly, it’s the State that needs fiat, as it controls and produces its own currency, taking power away from us.
reply
a classic bitcoin fixes this moment!
when they teach economics these days, do they at least mention the Austrian school, like give it a cursory, oh btw there's also this other school of thought but we disagree with it for XYZ reseaons?
or is it just Keysian all the way
reply
It's not explicitly Keynesian, aside from a few topics in macro, but most often the Austrians won't be mentioned outside of a History of Economic thought class.
Most economists who have a familiarity with Austrian Economics would say something like "The core ideas have been incorporated in modern microeconomic theory." and that's partly true.
reply
interesting. what are some of the worst parts about what's being taught as part of the current curriculum, in your opinion?
reply
It depends on the level. In undergrad, I actually think the content is mostly fine, but it's not very rigorous. Econ departments seem to approach their curricula from a revenue maximization standpoint and they know students don't like taking difficult classes.
reply
some threshold of divisibility
Yep, the natural state of prices being deflationary means divisibility needs to keep up
I've actually been dunking on the egalitarian scaling cope a lot with this recently, as every scaling proponent is intellectualy dishonest until they ack Bitcoin's indivisibility
reply