Which School of Economics are you?

This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Which School of Economics are you?
Topic Started: Feb 7 2009, 03:53 PM (178 Views)
East Anarx	Feb 7 2009, 03:53 PM Post #1
Anarchitect Posts: 4,788 Group: Multi Member #210 Joined: January 16, 2006	Mises Institute's "Are You an Austrian?" Quiz



Paradise	Feb 7 2009, 04:25 PM Post #2
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	Too long. I don't want to take two hours for this.



Kasnyia	Feb 7 2009, 04:27 PM Post #3
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	The Kas school of economics. :D



Union	Feb 7 2009, 04:38 PM Post #4
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	1: Third Answer, Keynesian/NeoClassical 2: Third Answer, Historical School 3: Fourth Answer, Austrian School 4: First Answer, Keynesian/NeoClassical 5: Third Answer, Chicago School 6: Fourth Answer, Keynesian/NeoClassical 7: Fourth, Keynesian/NeoClassical 8: First, Socialist 9: Second, Socialist 10: Second, Keynesian/NeoClassical 11: Fourth, Keynesian/NeoClassical 12: Third, Keynesian/NeoClassical 13: First, Chicago School 14: First, Keynesian/NeoClassical 15: Third, Keynesian/NeoClassical 16: Second, Keynesian/NeoClassical 17: First, Socialist 18: Second, Austrian School 19: Third, Socialist 20: Third, Socialist 21: Fourth, Keynesian/NeoClassical 22: Second, Socialist 23: Fourth, Social [not Socialist?] 24: Third, Keynesian/NeoClassical 25: First, Keynesian/NeoClassical



lebowski2123	Feb 7 2009, 04:52 PM Post #5
Resident? Posts: 1,535 Group: Members Member #257 Joined: July 22, 2006	I bit the bullet and sat through it. Came out 67% Austrian, with a good amount of the remaining 33% indicating the Chicago School (which I had never heard of) and a few Keynesian answers mixed in. EDIT: Doing it Huesca's way 1) 1st answers, Austrian 2) 3rd, Historical School 3) 2nd, Chicago 4) 3rd, Austrian 5) 1st, Austrian 6) 3rd, Austrian 7) 4th, Keynesian 8) 2nd, Austrian 9) 3rd, Chicago 10) 4th, Austrian 11) 1st, Chicago 12) 4th, Chicago 13) 1st, Chicago 14) 3rd, Chicago 15) 4th, Austrian 16) 4th, Chicago 17) 2nd, Keynesian 18) 2nd, Austrian 19) 1st, Austrian 20) 4th, Chicago 21) 1st, Austrian 22) 4th, Keynesian 23) 1st, Chicago 24) 3rd, Keynesian 25) 2nd, Austrian Edited by lebowski2123, Feb 7 2009, 04:59 PM.



East Anarx	Feb 7 2009, 05:05 PM Post #6
Anarchitect Posts: 4,788 Group: Multi Member #210 Joined: January 16, 2006	Paradise Too long. I don't want to take two hours for this. I know what you mean. There's also a shorter ten question quiz, though. It's the only one I've done so far, being rather busy. My scores on it were 100% Austrian all the way through. I'll post my results for the 25 question quiz when I take the time to do it, though I'm fairly certain the results will suggest something similar.



Tristan da Cunha	Feb 7 2009, 05:34 PM Post #7
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	I tried to do this test once... didn't have the stamina :lol:



Rhadamanthus	Feb 7 2009, 05:49 PM Post #8
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	63/100 1. First answer, Austrian 2. Second answer, Socialist 3. Fourth answer, Austrian 4. Third answer, Austrian 5. Fourth answer, Historical 6. Third answer, Austrian 7. Third answer, Austrian 8. Second answer, Austrian 9. Fourth answer, Austrian 10. First answer, Chicago 11. Third answer, Socialist 12. Second answer, Austrian 13. Fourth answer, Austrian 14. Second answer, Socialist 15. Third answer, Keynesian/Neoclassical 16. First answer, Austrian 17. Fourth answer, Chicago 18. Second answer, Austrian 19. Third answer, Socialist 20. Third answer, Socialist 21. Second answer, Chicago 22. Fourth answer, Keynsian/Neoclassical 23. First answer, Chicago 24. First answer, Austrian 25. Second answer, Austrian



Rhadamanthus	Feb 7 2009, 05:51 PM Post #9
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	lebowski2123 Feb 7 2009, 04:52 PM I bit the bullet and sat through it. Came out 67% Austrian, with a good amount of the remaining 33% indicating the Chicago School (which I had never heard of) and a few Keynesian answers mixed in. You've never heard of the Chicago School? Surely you've heard of a guy named Milton Friedman, for example?



Paradise	Feb 7 2009, 06:14 PM Post #10
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	I know I am the Chicago school so... It's pointless to lose two hours doing this test.



lebowski2123	Feb 7 2009, 07:10 PM Post #11
Resident? Posts: 1,535 Group: Members Member #257 Joined: July 22, 2006	Romanus Diogenes Feb 7 2009, 05:51 PM lebowski2123 Feb 7 2009, 04:52 PM I bit the bullet and sat through it. Came out 67% Austrian, with a good amount of the remaining 33% indicating the Chicago School (which I had never heard of) and a few Keynesian answers mixed in. You've never heard of the Chicago School? Surely you've heard of a guy named Milton Friedman, for example? Never, I'll be real with you. The only economics class in my high school is completely under the thumb of Keynes. I had heard of and identified myself as leaning more towards the Austrian School, but only thanks to a one day lesson on opponents to Keynesian thought.



Rhadamanthus	Feb 7 2009, 07:16 PM Post #12
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	I'm genuinely shocked. Milton Friedman is one of the most prominent figures in modern economics; he is certainly a very well-known and, before his death a few years back, influential figures in American economics. Your high school did wrong by you in that class, if I might say.



Tristan da Cunha	Feb 7 2009, 07:28 PM Post #13
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	Yeah, surprising you heard of Austrians but not Chicagoites. We've been toiling under a Chicago system all our lives...



The CNNP	Feb 7 2009, 07:45 PM Post #14
Enforcer Posts: 1,857 Group: Members Member #198 Joined: November 10, 2005	Definitely Austrian with a touch of Chicago. B)



Paradise	Feb 7 2009, 07:54 PM Post #15
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	Austrian School proponents are against econometrics and mathematical models. In my book, that make them philosophers and definitely not economists.



New Harumf	Feb 7 2009, 07:54 PM Post #16
Bloodthirsty Unicorn Posts: 9,638 Group: Forum Mods Member #177 Joined: October 8, 2005	There is a diner just off the campus of the University of Chicago that offers a free meal to anyone showing their Nobel Prize! I am fairly sure the U of C has won more Econ Nobel prizes than any other institution on the planet.



Union	Feb 7 2009, 09:54 PM Post #17
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	I suppose this explains why I hate discussing politics on this forum. :lol:



Tristan da Cunha	Feb 8 2009, 03:39 AM Post #18
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	Paradise Feb 7 2009, 07:54 PM Austrian School proponents are against econometrics and mathematical models. In my book, that make them philosophers and definitely not economists. Austrian economic concepts such as non-neutrality of money cannot be "verified" econometrically any more than the concept of marginalism can be "verified," even though marginalism is accepted by the Chicagoite econometricians. Ironically, only Austrian theory fits the empirical evidence and experience. All the economic events of the past were accounted for using Austrian analysis. Furthermore the strength of any theory lies in its predictive power and Austrian theory provides far more predictive power than Keynesian and monetarist theories. Austrian proponents do not reject econometrics on faith. Instead Austrian theory makes the empirical observation that economic activities are too complex to "improve upon" with econometric manipulations like monetary policy. Perhaps in the future a supercomputer can understand economic activities, but with our current technology all forms of econometrics are fatally flawed due to incomplete information. For example, the popular econometric concept of "aggregate demand" is a complete fallacy. Macro concepts like aggregate demand are useless since they totally neglect the microeconomic realities. Statistics like "Aggregate demand" or "GDP growth" are meaningless if the demand or growth are not efficient. Monetarists are similar to Bolsheviks in that they both focus on macro econometrics, and therefore damage the economy. Bolsheviks building giant industrial gulags in the Soviet Union, or monetarists incentivizing an asset bubble with interest rate policy, in both situations might produce nominal increases in economic output, but if that output is poor quality or ill-suited to the needs of the economy, it's hardly more useful than producing nothing at all. In both the bolshevik and monetarist systems, the economy must inevitably adjust, which is what we are experiencing right now. This is just one example of the uselessness of macro econometrics, and how macro econometrics obscure rather than elucidate reality. It is true Austrian economic literatures often have philosophical components-though there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It is also true there are plenty of self proclaimed Austrian economists who are adequate philosophers but not really competent economists in the sense of being good microeconomic forecasters. Nonetheless Austrian theory provides the only tried-and-true tools for proper economic analysis, which fit the empirical experience and provide the only predictive power. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Feb 8 2009, 04:18 AM.



Paradise	Feb 8 2009, 09:28 AM Post #19
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	Tristan da Cunha Feb 8 2009, 03:39 AM Paradise Feb 7 2009, 07:54 PM Austrian School proponents are against econometrics and mathematical models. In my book, that make them philosophers and definitely not economists. Austrian economic concepts such as non-neutrality of money cannot be "verified" econometrically any more than the concept of marginalism can be "verified," even though marginalism is accepted by the Chicagoite econometricians. Marginalism doesn't have to be verified because it makes sense. Quote: Ironically, only Austrian theory fits the empirical evidence and experience. All the economic events of the past were accounted for using Austrian analysis. Furthermore the strength of any theory lies in its predictive power and Austrian theory provides far more predictive power than Keynesian and monetarist theories. Of course it does. You cannot make prediction without mathematical models, unless you make qualitative predictions, and qualitative predictions are MUCH easier to make than quantitative ones. Quote: Austrian proponents do not reject econometrics on faith. Instead Austrian theory makes the empirical observation that economic activities are too complex to "improve upon" with econometric manipulations like monetary policy. Perhaps in the future a supercomputer can understand economic activities, but with our current technology all forms of econometrics are fatally flawed due to incomplete information. For example, the popular econometric concept of "aggregate demand" is a complete fallacy. Macro concepts like aggregate demand are useless since they totally neglect the microeconomic realities. Statistics like "Aggregate demand" or "GDP growth" are meaningless if the demand or growth are not efficient. Monetarists are similar to Bolsheviks in that they both focus on macro econometrics, and therefore damage the economy. Bolsheviks building giant industrial gulags in the Soviet Union, or monetarists incentivizing an asset bubble with interest rate policy, in both situations might produce nominal increases in economic output, but if that output is poor quality or ill-suited to the needs of the economy, it's hardly more useful than producing nothing at all. In both the bolshevik and monetarist systems, the economy must inevitably adjust, which is what we are experiencing right now. This is just one example of the uselessness of macro econometrics, and how macro econometrics obscure rather than elucidate reality. Theoretically, aggregate demand can be calculated as the weighted sum of representative agents' individual demands. In reality, aggregate demand cannot be calculated as easily, it can only be estimated econometrically using the equilibrium (GDP) and the estimated economic autonomous expenses, using either a marshallian demand or an iso-elastic demand. Quote: It is true Austrian economic literatures often have philosophical components-though there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It is also true there are plenty of self proclaimed Austrian economists who are adequate philosophers but not really competent economists in the sense of being good microeconomic forecasters. Nonetheless Austrian theory provides the only tried-and-true tools for proper economic analysis, which fit the empirical experience and provide the only predictive power. They can't do any quantitative forecasts, only qualitative forecasts. It's just like horoscope lol, they "predict" something and some parts of it appear to be true just like in horoscope. If economists were all Austrians, I couldn't be economist because I don't like philosophy. I'd probably work as a statistician instead.



Tristan da Cunha	Feb 8 2009, 12:24 PM Post #20
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	Of course Austrians make quantitative forecasts. But only microeconomic forecasts, since macroeconomic methodologies aren't mathematically sound and no one has developed anything even close to a mathematically sound econometric method yet. Austrians will use econometrics only when the technology has allowed econometrics to be actually useful, but with our current level of technology econometric results are not just useless but also misleading. Applying modern econometric results is distortionary. I said econometric calculations aren't even mathematically sound. Aggregate demand is analagous to summing all the magnitudes of vectors ("representative agents' individual demands") without summing their directions. The result is incomplete information that can't be applied to the real world. Paradise Marginalism doesn't have to be verified because it makes sense. Exactly, you're using the same non-quantitative argument that you're faulting Austrian theory for. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Feb 8 2009, 12:36 PM.


« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »