[mdpopescu]

You learn quickly not to mention favorably certain taboo subjects here on HN, like Austrian economics or free markets being better than regulated one. (I'll refrain from pointing out others, I want to limit the number of downvotes I get. Self-censorship or, in other words, learned helplessness.)

[stephen_g]

Look, as much as I dislike the Austrian school (it all hangs on certain premises that I don't believe are necessarily true, so I don't think it contributes much to being able to understand the economy), the main problem with the comment above was that it wasn't very useful in just dropping a link with little context... With a bit of commentary or a brief summary of the article, people would have engaged with it instead of just downvoting.

[neilwilson]

So does mainstream economics. They are both wrong.

At least the Austrian school admits they made the whole thing up in a religious fashion and never submit their ideas to actual science.

Mainstream economics just pretends it's scientific when really the whole belief structure is a house of cards in the same way

[stephen_g]

I don't disagree, I think that certain ideas from the post-Keynesian and modern monetary theory are probably the closest to actual evidence based Economics at the moment.

[djsumdog]

There no real free market. I highly encourage the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years. The author makes the argument that markets do not exist independently of states, or at least when they do, they exist in the vacuum of a previous state post-collapse.

It's an incredibly eye opening book that talks about debt, money, war and slavery. They are all deeply connected.