I mean, for a start 'Austrian' economics is a joke.

There's plenty of literature out there about the end of gold standards in various countries. The upshot of it is that economies get warped by constrained currency supply and those who already have tend to get more, over those who produce or invest.

> I mean, for a start 'Austrian' economics is a bit of a joke.

More specifically, Austrian economics is overtly and proudly ideological rather than empirical; it is about advancing an agenda not describing reality.

It's worth taking seriously, but as a particular group’s body of theology and religious propaganda, not as science.

"It's terrible, it's a joke" isn't an argument. Neither is "there's lots of literature" (implying "go do your own research").

Your last sentence was decent; the rest of your post was... not very useful.

> "It's terrible, it's a joke" isn't an argument.

True, it's not so much an argument as a fact. As the other poster says, it's basically a set of idealogical positions.

> implying "go do your own research"

You're right, I shouldn't have left that to implication.

Calling a position a joke, and calling that a fact, is not very persuasive. I can't tell if you're a troll, or just a lousy debater, but you're trying to win the argument by default. You don't get to do that, at least not here. Either some evidence or some argument would strengthen your position; drive-by dismissive mockery just makes you look lazy and unwilling to actually engage in substantive conversation.

I am unwilling to engage in substantive conversation when it comes to Austrian economics. There's little point to it, those who are adherents are not going to change their minds, it's an idealogical, rather than empirical position to take.

I'm not trying to win a debate here, nor am I interested in debating the merits of a system that I don't think has any.