What are the metrics to gauge an economy?
Should we go with Austrian gold fetishists, electronic monetary circuitists, neo-instutionalists who haven't been institutionalized, post Keynesian money tree foresters or neo-classicists when investing in a market?
>Have them beat each other up on a ring
Better than 99% of debates, on that note;
>Whose favourite kraut economist beats the others?
I''l go with axel Dreher as he's a sprucy, young 50 something who could probably hold himself in a fight against average economist

Any metric will be gamed so its necessary to have a comprehensive and holistic suite of metrics that encompasses both the quantitative and qualitative sides of the dynamic system

At this specific point in time I subscribe to Ian mcgilchrist's theory of an excess focus on the left brained reductive analysis. I believe in the short term an increased emphasis on human judgement by a panel of ideologically diverse candidates will provide best value for cost

>>60693974
>Whose favourite kraut economist beats the others?
You missed this question. Also that answer seems valid enough, should we move the thread to /his/ and be bullied for posting humanities?

What does this have to do with praxeology? You are talking some abstract gibberish. If you are interested in that try marxism

>>60694046
Its very diffult to find information on their height/weight/formal fighting training so I'll just go with hans-herman hoppe

Most psuedo-intellectual post on /biz/ right now. Have you heard of the Cumrocket standard?

>>60694156
No, please enlighten us cumrocket anon, can say, Hoppe defend against it when Backhaus triesto attack him in the ring?

>>60694381
why do you have the image of a random pedophile stored in your hard drive

>>60693948 (OP)
If it's not math it's not legitimate. Keynes was unironically right, it's just that human institutions are not incorruptible.

>>60693948 (OP)
just read Schumpeter. Austrian economics was outdated already by 1950

>>60694410
Good example of the excess in left brained thought

>>60694419
>muh left brained therefore bad

>>60693948 (OP)
>>60694381
>>60694117
>hans-herman hoppe
He is old and frail albeit relatively tall. I'm going with his Property and Freedom society right hand man Jorg Guido Hülsmann. He is around 2m (6'6'' or so), broad shouldered and still young enough to beat someone up. Also as a Catholic he has the power of God on his side

>>60694412
>Schumpedo
He was dead by 1950, as were his theorems in the water, laborism cannot replace entrepreneurship, ECP and EKP hard-cap organization and centralization, there cannot be a human unitary state or group of any meaningful authority. He was also a dirty little K*ynesian and thus deserved to be spanked by the lewd hand of the market!

>>60694428
Not what I said, I said it was an excess which is evident from you throwing out all non-math. Unless you include logic in math's then we are arguing over nothing

>>60694494
>you throwing out all non-math
I didn't claim this. However an economy is composed of money flows which require quantitative analysis, so in my view qualitative logic is insufficient and inexact. I also think subjectivity of economic preferences almost doesn't matter because people tend to behave in concordance with well studied statistical distributions in aggregate (which is why ML/AI appears to work well). It's a uncomfortable thought that the mass of humans are essentially NPCs that behave like biological machines and follow patterns but it appears to be true, thus the most useful economic theory will incorporate this and the language of these phenomena is probability and stochastic processes.

>>60694538
Im not advocating for no quant but only for qualia to be part of the process, the Austrians can make a simple arguement like increasing the money supply increases prices and the keynsians will gish gallop a thousand charts on why this obviously true logic isn't so

>>60694538
As a side note I do not believe in this sort of super determinism you are implying, it works when calculating history but I believe predictive math's to be more like markov chains where you cant account for every variable. I also find the notion that choosing a blueberry snowcone instead of a cherry one because of the way the atoms are bouncing in my head to be a bit absurd

>>60694552
If the money supply increases but is stagnant in an account somewhere then prices won't increase because the flows don't increase. Velocity also matters. I think it's just a matter of precision and semantics desu and not that interesting. Both camps are right in different ways.
>>60694562
Like with any random process, the actual outcome is not predictable, but the statistics are (usually). Yes there are hidden variables like in HMMs and these change the distributions accordingly and are quantifiable.

>>60693948 (OP)
Opinions on...
>Cantillion
>Ricardo
>Zoltan
?
Also, was Ricardo a... you know... tribeman?

>dude if i explain to you this convoluted system of money changing will you pleaase let me get out of work
Hahaha back to breaking rocks for you

>>60694538
> the mass of humans are essentially NPCs that behave like biological machines and follow patterns but it appears to be true.
This is silly, we have little to no understanding of such machinery, it would be better to simply use logic and limit possible damages by decentralizing since we are not omnipotent.

>>60694753
>he doesn’t know
We live in a world where tech companies constantly data mine user preferences to optimally extract money and engagement from them. There are those among us which don't fall for the tricks but the blackpill is that most people do. Machine learning made this possible, and that is math and statistics.

>>60694767
>But advanced statistics
Which fail to produce a human, and the machines that are produced by the state of the art sciences fundementally don't think the way humans do, they cannot be human and humans cannot be machines.
The only economization you can do would be the inside economy of your machines in the best case scenario

>>60694800
>Which fail to produce a human, and the machines that are produced by the state of the art sciences fundementally don't think the way humans do, they cannot be human and humans cannot be machines.
That's not the issue. The fact an individual human is complex does not negate the fact that masses of humans act in predictable ways that are exploitable by algorithms. Your post is truly midwit tier and devoid of understanding.

>>60695017
xXir, if your argument devolves to:
>if we just obsolete humanity as we know it, my idea would work
I would kindly ask you to redeem the idea by actually obsoleting humanity in any meaningful form first, not automatons which fundamentally cannot think as you gave in your example. You cannot empirically calculate a Human being in totality as far I'm aware, calculate a human, on and then talk about your ideology.
>Ie. Prove you can become a god first and then tell us all you want about it
>Muh algorithms can collapse the economy AFTER calculating a part of it.
The fact that your algorithms can predict with barely any accuracy at all is scarcely an achievement, as it has been done before by simply manufacturing a palace economy, it's all fake and gay, collapsing every time it has ever been tried of course. The process which you emulate on paper and call an achievement bar the collapse part.
Your entire premise is at best, an interesting quirk for a supposed god race, at worst the complete and utter destruction of humanity by a cult of Excel worshiping lunatics who with all respect should be institutionalized and always be on meds.