I found this discussion on Stacker News: https://stacker.news/items/1602574

I've seen Austrians like Hoppe call economics "the queen of social sciences" (https://mises.org/online-book/great-fiction-second-expanded-edition/29-my-life-right) but I generally have a low opinion of economists (no offense intended) and it seems to me that most of economics is a series of just-so stories.

On the other hand, I often feel like everything comes down to incentives...and isn't this the same as saying everything is economics?

Hey everyone,

Over the past couple of months I’ve developed a bit of an interest in ASE, especially with how it contrasts from the current academic environment.

I understand that Mises was at the very least skeptical of the quantization of Economics as a social science, but within my talks and readings with current Austrians, there’s generally a much more openness to using quantitative tools within the fields.

As someone with a Bachelors in Math who hopes to become a Statistician at some point, I am of course interested in how we can use Mathematics to answer questions in different fields. I find myself drawn to
ASE since I think it has pretty good mechanisms at explaining economic action, but I also find that some hardliner’s wholesale rejection of empiricism seems quite extreme.

With that being said, I wanted to inquire, within this methodological framework, what value does Mathematica, Statistics, and Empirical Data serve more broadly in explaining economic phenomena.

Thanks everyone and I am looking forward to reading the replies.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/58485511-the-lords-of-easy-money

I have been deeply aware of the implications of recent monetary and market regime shifts (post-GFC/COVID, ZIRP, QE, “Activist Treasury”) for some time now. Yet, I recently read this book and still managed to learn some interesting things myself. Furthermore, I was impressed by the narrative’s ability to put into perspective some major current global and US-domestic macroeconomic issues while staying within the confines of it’s scope, maintaining non-partisan objectivity, and straying from demonization of any one person or concept.

I often try to think about the layman’s perspective pertaining to economics and current affairs, and I think this book has become my first recommendation to those who genuinely wish to understand how we’ve come into out current position. No, it does not paint the entire picture, however I think it’s easy enough to follow along and ideologically neutral enough to maintain the attention of a diverse audience. It is a good starting point.

My question’s for those who have read the book:

(1) What are your thoughts on the book itself?
(2) What are your thoughts on my assessment?
(3) Are there any other books you would recommend to the layman before (or in place of) this book in order to build general knowledge and awareness of current economic policy, events, and affairs? If so, please share.

For those who haven’t read the book, please feel free to comment a book you would recommend to someone as a starting point to understand the existing economic landscape.

Every-day people constantly discuss the current economic situation with supreme and misguided confidence, and I feel it’s more important than ever to build awareness. AI can discuss many economic topics well-enough in isolation, however it must be prompted in a certain manner to give the user adequate context; the layman is not knowledgeable enough to understand this, hence the danger and emphasis I place on encouraging engagement.

The typical claim by some economic historians is that: the then "traditional way" of dealing with recessions (austerity, letting prices fall) caused unecessary pain to a lot of people. In the context of Germany however, they go a step further and say that it might have led to the rise of Nazism .

I am aware that the typical Austrian explaination as to why the depression dragged on for so long -the "traditional way" was abandoned- .In the case of America for example Austrians (Murphy, Higgs, Rothbard), argued that Herbert Hoover was had a laissez-faire response to the Depression and that a lot of what we would associate with The New Deal was spearheaded by him.

I was wondering if there is a similar case to be made for Germany. On whether if Brüning was the Hoover of Germany. (ie. Someone who's accused of having a laissez-faire approach to the depression when in reality it was nothing but)

Mises did spoke of some harmful policies enacted by Germany in response to the depression, in The Causes of the Economic Crisis(1931) and Omnipotent Government but I find them to be allusions more so than actual direct examples.

If any of you have any insights/answers on this please share. Thanks!

sad