none of them

there is no such thing as keynesian, austrian, conservative, or liberal economics

economics is a science

in science, we measure things to reveal what they are (beginning with numbers), not dictate where they should go

in other words, economics is the study of scarce resources and how they are allocated

the only language that economics may be spoken in for the time being is math (an exception exists and will be mentioned at the end)

studying “scarce resources” requires the student who is interested in referring to a particular fraction of a finite quantity at rest (stored) to speak of this fraction in terms of kgs, tons, gallons, and so on

also relevant are the distances the resource must travel across a period of time between old and new owners (in km, mi, inches, etc)

therefore, economics is entirely a science because its study requires creating access to knowledge that refers to how much of this stuff traveled such and such distance—and because we’re most likely interested in “trade”—we must also make known how much traveled in the opposite direction

economics’ rightful place within the tree of knowledge is that of “branch” to the field of physics since it is strictly concerned with measuring how humans negotiate the trade of property when the Law of Conservation is a physically inviolable parameter

so, if you’re the head of the econ department at a university, you've just received a new boss :o (kindly begin packing your belongings and move into the physics building)

the public may now confidently regard all such words as “socialism”, “communism”, “leftist”, and “right-winger” as literary devices that describe nothing scientific or useful because their purpose is to promote gangs rather than knowledge

and if you do come into contact with a phd who argues for one of them, or that economics is not a science, then they most likely obtained their degree from a thesis advisor who merely agrees with them

people have a tendency to defend their academic degrees at the expense of what is real because they refuse to see all their hard work voided by a consensus fallacy

as a result, confusion abounds with many not knowing what to think, and feelings are hurt

pay no attention to this

now its time for you to see and think for yourself, which is why science is such a blessing

we'll measure and run the numbers together

the exception to the rule stated in the beginning that math may be the only language used when pursuing economics:

the english translation for x²+y²=1 is “circle, with radius of one”

math may be translated into english, or any other language, so long as the resulting translation does not transgress the bounds fixed by its mathematical equivalent

otherwise, events begin to mutate (sometimes conveniently) and we end up with a hidden monster that devours reason and understanding

issuing promises of how things will look in the future, as well as the use of metaphor, requires a license that may only be obtained by demonstrating a deep commitment to the literal. how literal? mathematical