>Finally, most of these arguments are disputed by the so-called "Austrian school" of economics. It's important to recognize that this school is much, much, much more popular with laymen than with professional economists. This doesn't mean that the school's arguments are wrong, but it does raise questions about why the school's arguments which seem so utterly convincing to so many people, don't manage to gain many converts among people who research the subject professionally.
It doesn't automatically mean the Austrian School arguments are wrong, but it does make it much more probable that they are wrong. When trained and educated economists think something is bullshit economics, we should consider it to probably be bullshit.
So why don't we? Because for so many of "us" on Hacker News, deflation is a class interest: "we" hold "our" assets mostly in cash and land. An Austrian-style neofeudal economy thus suits "our" portfolios.
Personally, this reminds me that I need to call Vanguard about my actual investments today. Fuck cash and land, I want my wealth in something productive, and a productive investment will have more to gain from inflation eroding away private debt and a steady pick-up in demand from a stronger labor market than from Austrian-style deflation.
> When trained and educated economists think something is bullshit economics, we should consider it to probably be bullshit.
On the other hand, well-trained and educated economists could perhaps be incentivized to call something bullshit for reasons outside of academia. Like let's say, hmmm, I don't know, for personal gain?
Let's imagine what happens in a world where Austrian Economics is true, but economists are lying to the rest of us for personal gain.
First prediction: the economists will tell us that Austrian economics is wrong, but then use the Austrian theories they secretly know are actually true to invest their own assets.
It's also worth noting that economics is arguably a pseudo-science, as the theories themselves cannot be reproduced independently by external parties. So it's really hard to argue whether Austrian economics is "right" or "wrong".
I find it pretty hard to count him as evidence for anything, considering that he comes from the supply-side school. They're kind of known for being paid propagandists for particular business and political interests. Hell, he doesn't even seem to use Austrian Economics, or any other economics, himself, if he mixes himself up with entirely conventional financial firms like Blackrock and MetLife.
On third thought, I partially retract the comment about land. I've been confusing credit-backed conventional real estate markets with cash-backed land investing.
That would be a pretty good point, except that the real-estate market is currently gunked up with private debt. Eroding private debt with inflation can unlock a whole lot of markets that some asset holders don't want unlocked, because they're using the assets as a store of value (which can be transformed into other people's debt) rather than as a means of production.
I suspect more HN readers likely hold their assets in future income and earning potential. Which is fairly immune to inflation (as it rises with prices).
It doesn't automatically mean the Austrian School arguments are wrong, but it does make it much more probable that they are wrong. When trained and educated economists think something is bullshit economics, we should consider it to probably be bullshit.
So why don't we? Because for so many of "us" on Hacker News, deflation is a class interest: "we" hold "our" assets mostly in cash and land. An Austrian-style neofeudal economy thus suits "our" portfolios.
Personally, this reminds me that I need to call Vanguard about my actual investments today. Fuck cash and land, I want my wealth in something productive, and a productive investment will have more to gain from inflation eroding away private debt and a steady pick-up in demand from a stronger labor market than from Austrian-style deflation.