Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

710

Hi all,

Been doing a bit of study into economics as of late. Just finished watching this video: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=9V3RlJdIXVY

So I need to ask, which economics is best economics?

As of late I've been skewing towards the Austrian school of economics, which itself is born from classical economics, however within that branch, there are several other types including Chicago school, and even Keynesian economics.

Now I know that Keynesian economics doesn't work, because in practice the government doesn't actually cut back on spending during a boom, and instead just uses it as an excuse to print or borrow more money.

But I'm split on Austrian and Chicago schools of thought. The difference seems to be that one believes in using mathematics and past history to prove or disprove economic theory, whilst the Austrian school uses logic.

On one hand, the use of empirical data has a high tendency to produce a flawed outcome, especially if one doesn't take into account certain factors. But on the other hand, it's real world results that expose things that mere ideas don't always take into account.

What is poal's opinion?

Hi all, Been doing a bit of study into economics as of late. Just finished watching this video: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=9V3RlJdIXVY So I need to ask, which economics is best economics? As of late I've been skewing towards the Austrian school of economics, which itself is born from classical economics, however within that branch, there are several other types including Chicago school, and even Keynesian economics. Now I know that Keynesian economics doesn't work, because in practice the government doesn't actually cut back on spending during a boom, and instead just uses it as an excuse to print or borrow more money. But I'm split on Austrian and Chicago schools of thought. The difference seems to be that one believes in using mathematics and past history to prove or disprove economic theory, whilst the Austrian school uses logic. On one hand, the use of empirical data has a high tendency to produce a flawed outcome, especially if one doesn't take into account certain factors. But on the other hand, it's real world results that expose things that mere ideas don't always take into account. What is poal's opinion?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 0 pt

I need/want to study more about the various schools; from what I've dabbled in I think I personally tend toward the Austrian school as a dogma, but whether it accurately explains what actually occurs in all cases, I don't know.

Is there a school that can predict macroeconomics from microeconomics? At its heart, isn't economics a study of human decisionmaking? So it has to account for our rationality and irrationality individual by individual. The "real economics" is only that which actually happens - if I buy a pack of bacon, or decide where to eat lunch based on an advertisement or coupon, or decide which car to buy based on safety ratings, or pay for expedited shipping because I need something NOW, or determine an hourly pay rate for my employee, etc.

Economists attempt to encompass quite a bit in their theories; I don't envy them.

[–] • 1 pt

With regards to rationality and irrationality, I think that's going a bit deeper in the fundamentals.

I can't find it on mobile, but if you search on youtube you can find a quick summary/review of Thomas Sowell's "A conflict of visions": it's done in the style of someone drawing illustrations with a marker. The summary alone is really eye opening, the book is on my to-read list.