Every School of Economics Explained in 9 minutes

How about the Dutch 16th century economics?

Well, public choice theory explains why supple side economics stays afloat lol

You left out modern money theory

Maybe Marx was right about capitalism and wrong about socialism. 😜 Socialism does not generate enough revenue to keep an economy going by itself. Capitalism terminates itself in greed and wealth concentration. Neither is an ideal social structure. This is why an organized democracy is necessary to the long term survival of a civilization. Hoarding of, and concentration of wealth are both unsustainable economic models. - You can see a little bit of modern economics in each of these models.

Marxian economics 👍

Neo Keynesian Economics! Gotta tackle those inefficiencies. I have found that the Romer's had their moment in the sun, but then decided they preferred to just run complex math equations as opposed to doing anything real. When Obama got elected, there was a moment of hope - before it all got buried in "lets just spend more money!" (ie Krugman Economics).

0:31 this is FALSE. 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Adam Smith and David Ricardo did NOT support the Labor Theory of Value!

They used COSTS theory of value. They factored in many factors that go into production. They admitted there were deep flaws with Costs Theory of Value. It couldn't solve the diamond water paradox or explain why wine gets more valuable with age etc...

Marx dumbed this already flaws theory down to primarily labor and based his entire worldview around it 😂😂😂😂😂

Adam Smith
Smith distinguished between natural price (determined by labor, rent, and profit costs) and market price (determined by supply and demand).

He explicitly recognized that:
Labor was only ONE component of value alongside capital and land
Market prices fluctuate based on supply and demand
In advanced economies, value comes from multiple sources, not just labor

Smith's famous diamond-water paradox actually demonstrates he understood labor couldn't explain value... water has immense use-value but low exchange value, while diamonds are the opposite.

David Ricardo
Ricardo used a cost-of-production theory, not a pure labor theory.

He:
Acknowledged that different capital intensities make pure labor calculations impossible
Recognized that time preferences and capital affect value
Used labor as an approximation for analytical convenience in specific contexts
Explicitly stated his theory had significant limitations

Ricardo wrote that commodities derive value from scarcity AND from the quantity of labor required, he never claimed labor was the sole source.

Marxist love repeating the myth that Adam Smith and Ricardo supported their low IQ LTV 😂

Marx cherry-picked from Smith and Ricardo to construct his Labor Theory of Value.

Marx claimed
ALL value comes from labor alone
Capital is "dead labor"
Profit is exploitation of surplus value

This is ridiculously dumb for anyone who understands economics or who has created a business.

This was Marx's economically illiterate interpretation, not Smith's or Ricardo's position. Marx was compiling bad ideas from Adam Weishaupt and others who derived their ideas from the occult and gnostic eschatological beliefs. This is why he didn't care that he didn't understand economics, he did begin studying economics but this was after he was hired to write the book. He never got a deep understanding.

The book was poetically going to be called "the Communist Confession of Faith" because it was religious not economic. They changed it to the Communist Manifesto.

The Austrian Refutation
The Austrians (Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises) thoroughly demolished the LTV.

The proto Austrians debunked LTV 10 years BEFORE Marx even began WRITING! If Marx was well read on the modern economics of his day he'd have known that LTV was already destroyed before he began writing.

Value is subjective - it exists in human minds, not in objects
Value is determined by marginal utility, not labor inputs
Labor itself derives its value from the value of what it produces, not vice versa

The LTV gets causation backwards!

Anyone claiming Smith and Ricardo were LTV proponents either hasn't read them carefully or is deliberately misrepresenting classical economics to create a false lineage for Marxist thought.

blah blah blah

A lot of these are myths and impractical
Economics is truly a social science

Merkantilism, Colbertism, Bullionism, Kammeralism, Younger and Older Historical School, "Staatswissenschaften".... all missing. The Video is a selection at best.

No ordoliberalism?

Marxian economics is an oxymoron

The American School of Economics forgotten again

Friendly reminder that there is a difference between Neoclassical Economics and New Classical Economics

Each being a scam to benefit originator.

When the classical economists called for free markets they meant RENT-FREE markets not the 'free-for-all major capitalists' markets neo-liberalism has inflicted on humanity!

You forgot georgist economics , and Proudhonist economics

Where is the MOTHER of ALL ECONOMIC SCHOOLS ??? SALAMANCA SCHOOL !!

You forgot Islamic economics.

Where is MMT?

An Economy in perfect equilibrium is either a dead economy or an economy with very unrealistic requirements like perfectly stable population.

Ch douglass the flat earther with Chesterton george benard shaw and hitoer that economics that a goddamend success spacenis not real kill of nasa

Where’s the American School of Economics?

Mostly all shit because they all rely on a deeply flawed system which is capitalism. They really got the world to believe the point of economics is growth, and not quality of life, lol f*ck them.

Supply-Side economic is just a vague justification of why the rich and business owners should control all of society’s resources, not a genuine theory.

Why is there a picture of Von Neumann under Neoclassical Economics? He designed the first computers, not an economist, FYI.

Marginal Utility theory came from the Austrians. Not the neoclassicals.

How did you know I wanted this? I began seriously with macroeconomics a few weeks ago.