Mises wanted to tear down all the pillars that once supported the West and replace them with "democracy," which he explicitly says is when you vote for a party and buy stuff from businesses. He hated West civilization so much that he thought all of its great figures going back to Plato were socialists.
Both are very strongly against West and the society Mises wanted naturally turns into the sort Marx advocated. There's no serious difference between the two.
Mises by a long shot. Marx had some valuable insights in sociology and some sharp analysis of capitalism, even if you disagree with his solutions, but Mises was a libertarian moron.
Mises was a genius who predicted the collapse of gommunism already in the 1920s, Marx was a village idiot but at least he tried (hard); but the moron, crook and lazy bastard (cringe) in one was pic related. All he's know for is basically adopting the Ponzi scheme on grand scale; he didn't even invent his most famous idiocy.
This is cringe. He was a genius that made great contributions to probability theory, mathematics, politics, and essentially founded modern macroeconomics.
He didn't even _understand_ mathematics either. E.g. there can be no Aggregate Supply _Function_ (in a mathematical sense) because you can obviously expect different outputs with the same number of employers. No one with basic understanding of mathematics would make this error (and nowadays the term "function" is customarily being omitted when talking about Aggregate Supply).
And "modern macroeconomics" is exactly a joke which let fricking Chinamen surpass the Western economy just few generations after they had to feed their population with sparrows to minimize starvation casualties. No one in human history has squandered such huge civilizational edge.
Certainly not, it was strictly about non-sustainable economy BUT:
The system which can be very quickly destroyed by actions of some misguided rulers would not be robust enough for long-term success anyways. The whole ado about constitutional division of power is to prevent something like this.
How can you call freedom and non-aggression (with full rights to self-defense tough) the worst ideology is beyond me. They didn't even invent it, _some_ israelites have embraced it and took the torch.
>you are free so long as you don't do x
Not free then.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, there is no freedom if some individuals are allowed to restrict the freedom of others. Freedom as defined by libertarians is maximum freedom which still logically consistent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>there's no freedom if there's danger, thus your freedom needs to be curtailed for you to be free >logically consistent
Top kek. Libertarians are just morons in denials, they give up the fullness of their freedom for the sake of safety just like everyone else, but pretend not to.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>there's no freedom if there's danger, therefore i must lick the boots of my favorite Black person-wing politician so i can always be ~~*safe*~~ instead of decide for myself with some degree of autonomy
Lolbertarians btfo amirite?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>morons in denials
That's deep.
And arguing whether you are free or not when in danger is exactly something a butthurt gommie "scholar" would spend his life on. But only if it's on a tax-funded salary - or sucking off some wealthy industrialist friends.
They're not that much different once you take into account they both are pacifists and both take non-violence for granted as a basis gor social order. Mises and classical liberals/libertarians in particular show an unbearable sense of arrogance for their accumulated aimless wealth while taking the respect of private property by stronger people for granted.
>economics is inherently cringe and moronic
I feel like no one on IQfy reads books of any kind and make his own opinion, no matter if marxist or austrian.
This board is a kindergarten filled with dunning-kruger manchildren pretending to understand stuff they don't know shit about.
>CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE
BASED ON CRINGE
I really doubt that there are any serious Austrians on IQfy. I think people here are just schizo about the Fed. They would be put off if they actually read Mises' works. Mises was a true liberal. He advocated for free, open borders and internationalism. He thought the League of Nations was too weak because he thought there needed to be a strong world state to secure international peace
btw, just for the use of morons who may even unironically ask such questions: we are NOT setting policies and occupy academia with some destructive, populist bullshit.
Marx was worse but Mises was also moronic.
Mises wanted to tear down all the pillars that once supported the West and replace them with "democracy," which he explicitly says is when you vote for a party and buy stuff from businesses. He hated West civilization so much that he thought all of its great figures going back to Plato were socialists.
Both are very strongly against West and the society Mises wanted naturally turns into the sort Marx advocated. There's no serious difference between the two.
Mises was based, Marx was cringe
cringe
>durr cringe based
Grow up
cope moron. You will never be epically throwing commies out of Pinochet copters. Your ideology also lost
Well, yours is impossible to ever work, ours is a practical matter of organizing defense against organized (governmental) crime.
Based post
Hating "western civilization" is only natural. That's a concept invented in USA.
There's no such thing as "western civilization" before 1945
>There's no such thing as "western civilization" before 1945
Oswald Spengler.
>replace them with "democracy,"
Mises was literally an economic advisor of Engelbert Dollfuss, you know, the fascist?
The israelite
Mises by a long shot. Marx had some valuable insights in sociology and some sharp analysis of capitalism, even if you disagree with his solutions, but Mises was a libertarian moron.
>and some sharp analysis of capitalism
like what?
>mises by a long shot
Still made better predictions than the other homosexual, or any other homosexual after him.
I'd say Marx wins this comfortably.
Ideologically they were both pretty much trash, but Marx was far worse in his personal life.
Mises was a genius who predicted the collapse of gommunism already in the 1920s, Marx was a village idiot but at least he tried (hard); but the moron, crook and lazy bastard (cringe) in one was pic related. All he's know for is basically adopting the Ponzi scheme on grand scale; he didn't even invent his most famous idiocy.
>Keynes was a moron
This is cringe. He was a genius that made great contributions to probability theory, mathematics, politics, and essentially founded modern macroeconomics.
He didn't even _understand_ mathematics either. E.g. there can be no Aggregate Supply _Function_ (in a mathematical sense) because you can obviously expect different outputs with the same number of employers. No one with basic understanding of mathematics would make this error (and nowadays the term "function" is customarily being omitted when talking about Aggregate Supply).
And "modern macroeconomics" is exactly a joke which let fricking Chinamen surpass the Western economy just few generations after they had to feed their population with sparrows to minimize starvation casualties. No one in human history has squandered such huge civilizational edge.
>collapse of gommunism
It had nothing to do with the economy but the actions of morons like Gorbotrov and Boris.
>it has nothing to do with the economy
>it's the leadership
>unironically blackpilled by a supermarket
Certainly not, it was strictly about non-sustainable economy BUT:
The system which can be very quickly destroyed by actions of some misguided rulers would not be robust enough for long-term success anyways. The whole ado about constitutional division of power is to prevent something like this.
isn't it funny that both extremes of the spectrum are israeli? pure coincidence I am sure
No, it's not a coincidence. It just shows that israelites have different views and are not some hive mind you morons think they are.
They consistently give birth to the worst ideologies.
How can you call freedom and non-aggression (with full rights to self-defense tough) the worst ideology is beyond me. They didn't even invent it, _some_ israelites have embraced it and took the torch.
>you are free so long as you don't do x
Not free then.
No, there is no freedom if some individuals are allowed to restrict the freedom of others. Freedom as defined by libertarians is maximum freedom which still logically consistent.
>there's no freedom if there's danger, thus your freedom needs to be curtailed for you to be free
>logically consistent
Top kek. Libertarians are just morons in denials, they give up the fullness of their freedom for the sake of safety just like everyone else, but pretend not to.
>there's no freedom if there's danger, therefore i must lick the boots of my favorite Black person-wing politician so i can always be ~~*safe*~~ instead of decide for myself with some degree of autonomy
Lolbertarians btfo amirite?
>morons in denials
That's deep.
And arguing whether you are free or not when in danger is exactly something a butthurt gommie "scholar" would spend his life on. But only if it's on a tax-funded salary - or sucking off some wealthy industrialist friends.
They're not that much different once you take into account they both are pacifists and both take non-violence for granted as a basis gor social order. Mises and classical liberals/libertarians in particular show an unbearable sense of arrogance for their accumulated aimless wealth while taking the respect of private property by stronger people for granted.
Mises because he couldn't into math
Marx because he spent a decade trying to cover up a contradiction in his LTV with words words words.
Both are cringe. Mises is slightly less cringe.
Kind of both but Mises is probably worse since economics is inherently cringe and moronic.
I feel for Marx it was more of means to an end.
>economics is inherently cringe and moronic
I feel like no one on IQfy reads books of any kind and make his own opinion, no matter if marxist or austrian.
This board is a kindergarten filled with dunning-kruger manchildren pretending to understand stuff they don't know shit about.
alright you got me, I only read Nietzsche and watch self help videos on youtube
Nice meme reply.
What does Nietzsche tell you about this then, at least post something that is not a total brainshart.
>balding shaved dude
>19th century glorious beard man doing the Napoleon pose meme
Obvious the left guy is cringe.
>CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE
BASED ON CRINGE
Mises wanted the state to leave you alone and Marx wanted it to put a gun to your head and force you to work for it.
>Marx wanted it to put a gun to your head and force you to work for it.
No? Have you ever read even a little bit of Marx?
Marx is the cringiest since he's wrong, but the best is Hayek
Are there any unironic Austrians here?
I really doubt that there are any serious Austrians on IQfy. I think people here are just schizo about the Fed. They would be put off if they actually read Mises' works. Mises was a true liberal. He advocated for free, open borders and internationalism. He thought the League of Nations was too weak because he thought there needed to be a strong world state to secure international peace
Nah, we're busy doing nothing in academia and setting economic policies in gaberment bureaus.
btw, just for the use of morons who may even unironically ask such questions: we are NOT setting policies and occupy academia with some destructive, populist bullshit.
Both were horrendous softbrains, but of the two Marx probably had the better understanding of human nature, funnily enough.