All Things Econ

[Arkolon]

Give complete control of the economy to the people, the government shouldn't have any control over it.

So should it be capitalist or anarchist?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Capital-A Anarchism and small-c capitalism are mutually exclusive, though.

[Threlizdun]

I was strong social democrat. Then, after I learned about the Russian Revolution; I became a libertarian marxist (anarcho-communist, luxemburgism, etc).

Stop. Just stop. Democratic Communism? Fine. Anarcho-Communism? A little wired, fine. But Libertarian Communism?

Well, considering the first person ever to self identify as a libertarian, Joseph Déjacque, was a communist, it is the most sensible usage of the term.

[Arkolon]

I'd like to know how much people's views on economics have shifted over time. Originally, I was a social "liberal", but gradually shifted towards conservatism and then eventually to libertarianism. My views still change, though, if I come across new information.

I started Laissez Faire conservative, moved to socialist and then, moved back to centre/centre left, with some libertarian views on economics. That's mainly because I'm taking it for my major.

So taking economics made you more libertarian?

[Kelinfort]

I started Laissez Faire conservative, moved to socialist and then, moved back to centre/centre left, with some libertarian views on economics. That's mainly because I'm taking it for my major.

So taking economics made you more libertarian?

Socially, yes. Economics, sort of, though I have developed my own ideas, free of ideological lines.

[The Liberated Territories]

I am not an economics major (or minor for that matter), and generally entered classical liberalism with a hatred of taxation and distrust over the libertarian left's economic positions, however I consider myself a bit more savvy with economics now a days. My main influences have been FA Hayek and Milton Friedman.

[Arkolon]

So taking economics made you more libertarian?

Socially, yes. Economics, sort of, though I have developed my own ideas, free of ideological lines.

If you accept self-ownership and the subjective theory of value, you're 90% of the way to being a full-blown libertarian. That 10% is just an extrapolation of the values you acquiesced to.

[Socialist Tera]

I am a Marxist-Leninist who believes in a planned economy.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Question for social democrats: why do you always propose expansions in the welfare state, but never tax cuts for the poor? Surely that would be the first thing to do if you want to help increase the purchasing power of lower income groups?

[Kelinfort]

Question for social democrats: why do you always propose expansions in the welfare state, but never tax cuts for the poor? Surely that would be the first thing to do if you want to help increase the purchasing power of lower income groups?

Well, as an individual who likes and subscribes to aspects of social democracy, I've never really understood that. I like the idea of a negative income tax and in fact, withholding any taxation on the first $40,000 earned by an individual, besides VAT, of course.

[Fanosolia]

I guess I'm a bit of a capitalist with some socialist tendencies, so welfare state-ish.

So like on the regulation side, just so long as we have safety, and environmental (if can be helped) standards, and companies don't misrepresent or lie about the product, or censor reviewers of said product, your company and i have no problems.

Other than that I'm for public healthcare and school, but have lightened up to other forms of schooling.

I'm neutral about taxes, like necessary evil of sorts. I prefer low simple taxation of income, and corporate income, though the only tax credits that i think i would be in support (at least that I know of admirably) of are credits on voluntary charity donations (like what the Libertarian party proposed in the states), and research and development, both in their respected taxation. I also prefer low or no sales tax.

[Arkolon]

Question for social democrats: why do you always propose expansions in the welfare state, but never tax cuts for the poor? Surely that would be the first thing to do if you want to help increase the purchasing power of lower income groups?

Well, as an individual who likes and subscribes to aspects of social democracy, I've never really understood that. I like the idea of a negative income tax and in fact, withholding any taxation on the first $40,000 earned by an individual, besides VAT, of course.

You know what, I think you might like The Economist magazine. It's generally comfortably in the right, but it's very intelligible and subscribes to what you subscribe, really: the scaled-down Nordic Model, which it calls "the next Supermodel". That is, free trade, mixed healthcare/education policies (not sure if they mention vouchers), low taxes, minimal business regulations, extensive property right protections, and a strongly-unionised labour force. I don't see why you still call yourself centre-left, though, because you've come off as centre-right or at least centre in the threads I've been in.

[Kelinfort]

Well, as an individual who likes and subscribes to aspects of social democracy, I've never really understood that. I like the idea of a negative income tax and in fact, withholding any taxation on the first $40,000 earned by an individual, besides VAT, of course.

You know what, I think you might like The Economist magazine. It's generally comfortably in the right, but it's very intelligible and subscribes to what you subscribe, really: the scaled-down Nordic Model, which it calls "the next Supermodel". That is, free trade, mixed healthcare/education policies (not sure if they mention vouchers), low taxes, minimal business regulations, extensive property right protections, and a strongly-unionised labour force. I don't see why you still call yourself centre-left, though, because you've come off as centre-right or at least centre in the threads I've been in.

Mmm...perhaps. I've read the Economist many times before, as I am studying for my major. but I find it quite ironic they said the "Downfall of the Nordic model" was right on the horizon in 2006. Here's the article: http://www.economist.com/node/8132582

I suppose you're right, but for my nation, I am definitely centre left, I am more of a international centrist, but in my nation, I am solidly centre left.

[Neo Rome Republic]

My economics I'd say are roughly a mix of Corporatism, Syndicalism, and Keynesianism.

[Arkolon]

You know what, I think you might like The Economist magazine. It's generally comfortably in the right, but it's very intelligible and subscribes to what you subscribe, really: the scaled-down Nordic Model, which it calls "the next Supermodel". That is, free trade, mixed healthcare/education policies (not sure if they mention vouchers), low taxes, minimal business regulations, extensive property right protections, and a strongly-unionised labour force. I don't see why you still call yourself centre-left, though, because you've come off as centre-right or at least centre in the threads I've been in.

Mmm...perhaps. I've read the Economist, but I find it quite ironic they said the "Downfall of the Nordic model" was right on the horizon in 2006.

I suppose you're right, but for my nation, I am definitely centre left, I am more of a international centrist, but in my nation, I am solidly centre left.

They weren't exactly wrong. The downfall of the Nordic welfare model hit its hardest in the 1990s, and when the rightist government came into power in Sweden in 2006 there were tax cuts as well as spending cuts, which is why their editorial on that wasn't totally wrong. The Nordic welfare state only really started progressing heavily in the 1970s, and they were then, and are now, comparably worse off than they used to be forty years ago. The Nordic countries maintain their large welfare states by pro-market trade and regulatory policies, which made them all the richer. The gargantuan welfare state began reversing that.

In the US, "Far left" means Progressive Democrat. On a worldwide scale, you might just be centre-right. I mean, I don't want to offend you if that's the problem at hand. You can call yourself whatever you want. What's your compass, by the way, if it isn't in your sig and I'm about to see it when I submit this post.

[The Liberated Territories]

My economics I'd say are roughly a mix of Corporatism, Syndicalism, and Keynesianism.

So fvck economics?

[Neo Rome Republic]

My economics I'd say are roughly a mix of Corporatism, Syndicalism, and Keynesianism.

So fvck economics?

I don't appreciate your tone. And I will be NOT talked that way, for simply stating what I believe. For your information, I did take a course in economics, it only convinced me that I'm right. So unless you soften your tone, I'm not going into any further discussions with you. It's funny how judgmental you are, for someone who himself has admitted to never taking an economics class.

[Arkolon]

So fvck economics?

I don't appreciate your tone. And I will be NOT talked that way, for simply stating what I believe. For your information, I did take a course in economics, it only convinced me that I'm right. So unless you soften your tone, I'm not going into any further discussions with you. It's funny how judgmental you are, for someone who himself has admitted to never taking an economics class.

Where on earth did you take that economics class?

[The Liberated Territories]

So fvck economics?

I don't appreciate your tone. And I will be NOT talked that way, for simply stating what I believe. For your information, I did take a course in economics, it only convinced me that I'm right. So unless you soften your tone, I'm not going into any further discussions with you. It's funny how judgmental you are, for someone who himself has admitted to never taking an economics class.

I don't need too, to know that's a terrible idea.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I don't appreciate your tone. And I will be NOT talked that way, for simply stating what I believe. For your information, I did take a course in economics, it only convinced me that I'm right. So unless you soften your tone, I'm not going into any further discussions with you. It's funny how judgmental you are, for someone who himself has admitted to never taking an economics class.

Where on earth did you take that economics class?

I am not going to dignify you with an answer. I can clearly see I'm being talked down to. This is simply a discussion for people to introduce what their economics are, not a contest to see who's right and wrong.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I don't appreciate your tone. And I will be NOT talked that way, for simply stating what I believe. For your information, I did take a course in economics, it only convinced me that I'm right. So unless you soften your tone, I'm not going into any further discussions with you. It's funny how judgmental you are, for someone who himself has admitted to never taking an economics class.

I don't need too, to know that's a terrible idea.

Well then it's you who needs to an economics course. Maybe then you wouldn't be a believer in voodoo economics. I am not going to waste anytime on someone who has never taken an economics, yet thinks he knows more than me, and has the nerve to talk down on me. We're done here.

[The Scientific States]

My economics I'd say are roughly a mix of Corporatism, Syndicalism, and Keynesianism.

Why do you believe in corporatism and syndicalism?

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't need too, to know that's a terrible idea.

Well then it's you who needs to an economics course. Maybe then you wouldn't be a believer in voodoo economics. I am not going to waste anytime on someone who has never taken an economics, yet thinks he knows more than me, and has the nerve to talk down on me. We're done here.

I never said I never taken a course in econ, I said I do not specialize in econ.

But lo, the dismal science strikes again.

[Neo Rome Republic]

My economics I'd say are roughly a mix of Corporatism, Syndicalism, and Keynesianism.

Why do you believe in corporatism and syndicalism?

Well a model of Corporatism has been successful European Nations. Such as the Nordic Nations and others. Well Syndicalism has more to do with my sympathies towards the working class, and there have been instances where cooperatively owned businesses have found success. So I think more of those should be introduced.

[Kelinfort]

Mmm...perhaps. I've read the Economist, but I find it quite ironic they said the "Downfall of the Nordic model" was right on the horizon in 2006.

I suppose you're right, but for my nation, I am definitely centre left, I am more of a international centrist, but in my nation, I am solidly centre left.

They weren't exactly wrong. The downfall of the Nordic welfare model hit its hardest in the 1990s, and when the rightist government came into power in Sweden in 2006 there were tax cuts as well as spending cuts, which is why their editorial on that wasn't totally wrong. The Nordic welfare state only really started progressing heavily in the 1970s, and they were then, and are now, comparably worse off than they used to be forty years ago. The Nordic countries maintain their large welfare states by pro-market trade and regulatory policies, which made them all the richer. The gargantuan welfare state began reversing that.

In the US, "Far left" means Progressive Democrat. On a worldwide scale, you might just be centre-right. I mean, I don't want to offend you if that's the problem at hand. You can call yourself whatever you want. What's your compass, by the way, if it isn't in your sig and I'm about to see it when I submit this post.

Well, I retook the test...and I have moved to the right.
.12 Right
-6.75 Libertarian

[Neo Rome Republic]

Well then it's you who needs to an economics course. Maybe then you wouldn't be a believer in voodoo economics. I am not going to waste anytime on someone who has never taken an economics, yet thinks he knows more than me, and has the nerve to talk down on me. We're done here.

I never said I never taken a course in econ, I said I do not specialize in econ.

But lo, the dismal science strikes again.

Don't try to spin this on me, it's you who started talking down to me and being dismissive. I simply responded by doing the same. Why should I treat you any differently, than you treat me?