Economic Schools of thought late 1800's and early 1900's.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For the sake of time I will post links then try to summarize each one.

Austrian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School_of_Economics
Basically Lassiez Faire, Gold Standard, and Free Trade. Liberal and Libertarian in a modern sense. 


German - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_school_of_economics
For the most part rather then being a set philosphy it was more about scientific approach to studying the economy. None the less many of the people who promoted this often tended to be more Economic Nationalist, Protectionist, often defended Trade Unions, and advocated much more Gov't involvement in the Economy. I would guess that since every Economics Professor in Germany was brought up under this that the roots of fascist economics are found in this school. Ironically they strongly Influence US economic policy in the late 1800's cause several German Economists emmigrated here. It mostly dealth with Trade policy though. European Social Democrats of today may also take some influences from here. Conservative, reactionary, and some forms of modern day socialism. 

English - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_historical_school_of_economics
Similar to the Germans in that they wanted to return to Inductive reasoning instead of the Deductive reasoning used by the Classical and Neoclassical Schools. They were also similariy Protectionist and viewed classicalists as defending Free-trade in an imperial and colonial setting where it is out of place in there view. Other then that there were not as Interventionist as the Germans. Probably the same as Germans.

Marxian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics

Pure and simple old fashioned Communism.

I am tempted to include Keynes but I want to keep it between about 1850 and 1920 and force you to choose between the four that are up there. It is also late and I am getting tired. Ideological labels are in a standard Global sense not US or 21st century specific.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Feh, I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable answering Marxian or German. I'll answer German for the sake of the poll, but I consider myself a Keynesian.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mine is really a mix between Austrian and German but I put Austrian cause I think its closest.

Feh, I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable answering Marxian or German. I'll answer German for the sake of the poll, but I consider myself a Keynesian.

I am pretty sure Keynes would have used at least some of the works of the German School to advance and base his own arguements.  Gustav Von Schmoller was one of the few to defend Labor Unions and he formed the "Society for Social Policy" which consisted of Conservative Economists who called for a Corporatist State-Industry-Labor Nexus. Neoclassicalists and other liberals labeled them "Socialists of the Chair". Again Ideological Labels are in there 19th Century defination.

[phk]

As it stands I'm primarily an adherent of neoclassical with corresponding behavioral/psychological adjustments made to models.

Btw... You should do more to distinguish the various schools of thought as there are some that are micro, some that are macro, some that are somewhat both.

[War on Want]

Feh, I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable answering Marxian or German. I'll answer German for the sake of the poll, but I consider myself a Keynesian.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Austrian.

[k-onmmunist]

     Austrian.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Probably more along the English school... simply because it seems more practical.  They pioneered the modern economy more or less and change came as it was needed... unlike Germany where change was slow to come which led to some rather devastating fits and starts.

I agree that sometimes we need major reform and changes... but generally, a more gradual and balanced way of doing things is preferable.

[Sensei]

I was tempted to vote German, but, as Snowguy stated, the English school was a lot more practical.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the four, Austrian, but I see myself more as a Distributivist.  The Austrian school works quite well if your only economic goal is maximizing GDP, but it lacks any consideration of the ethical consequences of doing so.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'll answer German for the sake of the poll, but I consider myself a Keynesian.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of the four, Austrian, but I see myself more as a Distributivist.  The Austrian school works quite well if your only economic goal is maximizing GDP, but it lacks any consideration of the ethical consequences of doing so.

Respect.

[Alexander Hamilton]

NOTA

Protectionism+pro-worker freedom (read: anti-union)

[Senator Robert A. Taft]

Austrian.  The other three are awful.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As it stands I'm primarily an adherent of neoclassical with corresponding behavioral/psychological adjustments made to models.

Btw... You should do more to distinguish the various schools of thought as there are some that are micro, some that are macro, some that are somewhat both.

My understanding of micro and macro are very limited at best. I also wanted to keep this narrowly focused on a set period and the dominant schools and there policies.

[Vepres]

Austrian with a bit of German thrown in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Austrian with a bit of German thrown in.

Yea Yea, I two like a side of German with my Austrian.

[Verily]

Now, or then? The English Historical School basically "had it right" for the colonial period and was far more economically effective for the British Empire than any other strategy would have been. Of course, Britain adapted poorly to changing circumstances that made the English School obsolete and brought classical liberalism to the fore.

In modern times, I am closest to the Austrian school with some English and German economic interventionist (but non-protectionist) leanings. And some Marxist influence, too.

[War on Want]

I guess after reading some of this more in detail I fall more into the English Historical School than the German Historical School but with some large influence from Marxist(I'm for total equal oppurtunity provided by government if necessary) and even Austrian(I support free trade).

[Mint]

Basically neo-Classicalism but a little more moderate/pragmatic than some people would assume (i.e. I don't oppose all government aid to the poor).

[opebo]

Of the four, Austrian, but I see myself more as a Distributivist.  The Austrian school works quite well if your only economic goal is maximizing GDP, but it lacks any consideration of the ethical consequences of doing so.

No, the Austrian school works very poorly for the purpose of maximizing GDP, which is why the Keynesian fix was necessary.

[Beet]

Modern mainstream economics, including Keynesianism, gets its genealogy from the Austrian branch here. Carl Menger and Leon Walras basically opened the way for Alfred Marshall who mentored Keynes; so I don't think the distinction at this stage is as stark as it would become later.

[opebo]

Modern mainstream economics, including Keynesianism, gets its genealogy from the Austrian branch here. Carl Menger and Leon Walras basically opened the way for Alfred Marshall who mentored Keynes; so I don't think the distinction at this stage is as stark as it would become later.

Precisely.

But my point was that the exact problem that Keynes and co. had with 'the Austrian school' was not that it was 'immoral' in its distribution but that it failed utterly to maintain demand and avoid crashes, deflations, and depressions. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But are crashes, deflation, and depression necessarily a bad thing looked at economically? They certainly cause people to reassess what they should be doing economically and seek more optimum ways of doing things.  They cause a considerable amount of personal pain in the the short term, and certainly more than is desirable, but to achieve a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster.

[Beet]

But are crashes, deflation, and depression necessarily a bad thing looked at economically? They certainly cause people to reassess what they should be doing economically and seek more optimum ways of doing things.  They cause a considerable amount of personal pain in the the short term, and certainly more than is desirable, but to achieve a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster.

That's more of a philosophical question. Empirically, people will always behave as if crashes, deflation and depression are necessarily bad, especially the latter two. The people who live through them generally seem to feel that way. And frankly, given what else happened the last time one occurred on a worldwide scale, I'm not particularly keen on finding out. What are you thinking of on "a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster."?