by Sanctissima » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:49 pm
by The of Japan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:58 pm
by Constantinopolis » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:01 pm
by Sanctissima » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:09 pm
The of Japan wrote:Can someone give a good definition of Austrian school of economics?
by The Portland Territory » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:12 pm
by Sanctissima » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:20 pm
The Portland Territory wrote:Laissez Faire capitalism is the best route for economic prosperity and equality. Though I do worry about the environmental and materialistic components of it
by The Portland Territory » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:24 pm
Sanctissima wrote:The Portland Territory wrote:Laissez Faire capitalism is the best route for economic prosperity and equality. Though I do worry about the environmental and materialistic components of it
Personally I prefer Monetarism, since Friedman more or less take into account the inherent unwieldyness of an unrestricted market (without falling into the Keynesian trap of stagflation through excessive government intervention), by advocating a more nuanced approach to monetary policy whilst simultaneously proposing a negative income tax to prevent people from falling through the cracks.
I tend to advocate a bit of French dirigisme on top of that, with some nationalization of key industries, but then again I'm not a libertarian and my views are a bit heterodox as far as Chicago-school economics goes.
by The of Japan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:24 pm
Sanctissima wrote:The Portland Territory wrote:Laissez Faire capitalism is the best route for economic prosperity and equality. Though I do worry about the environmental and materialistic components of it
Personally I prefer Monetarism, since Friedman more or less take into account the inherent unwieldyness of an unrestricted market (without falling into the Keynesian trap of stagflation through excessive government intervention), by advocating a more nuanced approach to monetary policy whilst simultaneously proposing a negative income tax to prevent people from falling through the cracks.
I tend to advocate a bit of French dirigisme on top of that, with some nationalization of key industries, but then again I'm not a libertarian and my views are a bit heterodox as far as Chicago-school economics goes.
by Valgora » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:29 pm
MT+FanT+some PMT
Multi-species.
Current gov't:
Founded 2023
Currently 2027
by Sanctissima » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:30 pm
The Portland Territory wrote:Sanctissima wrote:
Personally I prefer Monetarism, since Friedman more or less take into account the inherent unwieldyness of an unrestricted market (without falling into the Keynesian trap of stagflation through excessive government intervention), by advocating a more nuanced approach to monetary policy whilst simultaneously proposing a negative income tax to prevent people from falling through the cracks.
I tend to advocate a bit of French dirigisme on top of that, with some nationalization of key industries, but then again I'm not a libertarian and my views are a bit heterodox as far as Chicago-school economics goes.
There should be little to no taxes on the people nor their organizations at all. And with a negative income tax comes the redistribution of wealth. Anyways, I do have a few exceptions where currency is under the control of a central government-run bank to prevent artificial depressions, banning of certain immoral goods and services, and yeah
by Liriena » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:30 pm
The of Japan wrote:Can someone give a good definition of Austrian school of economics?
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by The Portland Territory » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:34 pm
Sanctissima wrote:The Portland Territory wrote:There should be little to no taxes on the people nor their organizations at all. And with a negative income tax comes the redistribution of wealth. Anyways, I do have a few exceptions where currency is under the control of a central government-run bank to prevent artificial depressions, banning of certain immoral goods and services, and yeah
Eh, there needs to be some kind of substantial budgetary revenue so that a government can actually run its country effectively. Without taxes, that only leaves you with tariffs and side-income from nationalized industries (which I assume you aren't in favour of). That's really not enough to make the cut, and tends to result in an unhealthy, unstable system, as was seen in 19th-century Britain (particularly major urban centers), along with several other countries at varying points in time.
by The Portland Territory » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:35 pm
Valgora wrote:I'm some form of Marxian/Socialist.
I'm a (Marxist-)Luxemburgist; however, that ain't really just about economics. But anyways, I'm also a (Revolutionary) Syndicalist which is arguably more concerned about economics but it ain't just about economics because it does involve politics as well (although, I believe just syndicalist is much more focused on economics than politics).
Luxemburgism ain't like Leninism (and Marxism-Leninism), it is very different compared to Leninism/Marxism-Leninism.
by Constantinopolis » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:41 pm
The Portland Territory wrote:Why do you believe socialism or anything in that umbrella is an economically sound idea? Not the ideas of equality or that, but that it will actually work?
by Sanctissima » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:42 pm
The Portland Territory wrote:Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, there needs to be some kind of substantial budgetary revenue so that a government can actually run its country effectively. Without taxes, that only leaves you with tariffs and side-income from nationalized industries (which I assume you aren't in favour of). That's really not enough to make the cut, and tends to result in an unhealthy, unstable system, as was seen in 19th-century Britain (particularly major urban centers), along with several other countries at varying points in time.
Tariffs and a low sales tax. I believe that the government's revenue should always be higher than it's expenditure to create some form of reserve in cases of national crisis. The issue with those nations is that they too were still high spenders and didn't budget correctly.
The only industry that should be nationalized, to an extent, be education.
by The of Japan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:43 pm
Constantinopolis wrote:The Portland Territory wrote:Why do you believe socialism or anything in that umbrella is an economically sound idea? Not the ideas of equality or that, but that it will actually work?
Define "work". A socialist system can obviously exist, because socialist systems have existed in the past. A socialist system can also obviously create a society with full employment, a high degree of economic equality and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth. That has also happened in the past.
So, what do you mean by "work", and what makes you think socialism can't do it?
by Constantinopolis » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:45 pm
The of Japan wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:Define "work". A socialist system can obviously exist, because socialist systems have existed in the past. A socialist system can also obviously create a society with full employment, a high degree of economic equality and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth. That has also happened in the past.
So, what do you mean by "work", and what makes you think socialism can't do it?
Sweden and Denmark are not socialist
by Socialist Union Of Deutschland » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:46 pm
by Telconi » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:46 pm
by Liriena » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:50 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by The of Japan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:50 pm
by The Portland Territory » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:51 pm
Constantinopolis wrote:The Portland Territory wrote:Why do you believe socialism or anything in that umbrella is an economically sound idea? Not the ideas of equality or that, but that it will actually work?
Define "work". A socialist system can obviously exist, because socialist systems have existed in the past. A socialist system can also obviously create a society with full employment, a high degree of economic equality and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth. That has also happened in the past.
So, what do you mean by "work", and what makes you think socialism can't do it?
by Sanctissima » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:51 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ethel mermania, Hidrandia, Kannap, Kreushia, Plan Neonie, Ravemath, Tungstan, Valentine Z
Advertisement