Economics Discussion Thread

[Sanctissima]

Haven't seen one of these done before, and I figure it's a reasonably interesting enough subject to garner discussion, so I've decided to give this a shot.

So... *clears throat Friedmanistically*, without further adieu, I'd like to humbly accept the honour of being OP for:


*insert drumroll*



THE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION THREAD


"Man is an animal that makes bargains. No other animal does this. No dog exchanges bones with another."
-Adam Smith, British economist & philosopher



Economics is a very diverse subject with multiple conflicting schools, theories and systems. For the poll options, I've created a list of several different schools of economics. Naturally, due to poll limits, not all options are available, and some similar-albeit-different schools have been merged together for convenience's sake. I figure it would be interesting if we could discuss our thoughts on the subject. Personally, I consider myself a Monetarist with some dirigiste influences. I'm quite in favour of a relatively unrestricted market economy, and I'm not particularly fond of most welfare programs, but I do nonetheless consider myself quite nationalist, and as such favour state-ownership of some sectors of the economy (notably transport, energy/natural resources and banking), so as to stabilize the economy and provide a supplementary government income that allows for taxes to be kept relatively low.

But that's just me. What your your thoughts? Please, discuss.

[The of Japan]

Can someone give a good definition of Austrian school of economics?

[Constantinopolis]

Marxian socialist here, obviously. I strongly advocate a socialist planned economy, with state ownership of all the means of production, labour vouchers instead of closed-circuit money, and heavy use of computer networks in planning.

[MERIZoC]

Good to see a clear consensus emerging in the polls.

[Sanctissima]

Can someone give a good definition of Austrian school of economics?

Basically, the economic component of Anarcho-Capitalism, although it is a bit more nuanced than that since there are two broad sub-schools within Austrian-School economics. Them being:

-Misesian economics: Based on the philosophy of Ludwig von Mises, who was basically the epitome of AnCapistani. The most notable modern Misesian Austrian-School economist would probably be Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

-Hayekian economics: Based on the philosophy of Friedrich Hayek. Arguably the more popular of the two, Hayekian Austrian-School economics is more extreme libertarian than outright Anarcho-Capitalist, and tolerates a certain level of state-intervention in the economy, notably with social safety nets. The most notable influence Hayek's intellectual heirs have on modern society is probably best seen in the Cato Institute.

[The Portland Territory]

Laissez Faire capitalism is the best route for economic prosperity and equality. Though I do worry about the environmental and materialistic components of it

[Sanctissima]

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.

[The Portland Territory]

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.

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

[The of Japan]

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.

Stagflation sure does inspire change

[Valgora]

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.

[Sanctissima]

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

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.

[Liriena]

Socialist here. I really like worker's self-management and the labor theory of value.

Can someone give a good definition of Austrian school of economics?

IIRC, they're what happens when you totally misread Adam Smith, make up a bunch of unrealistic stuff to compensate, and proclaim that you now own economics as a science and everything else is evil politics. *nod*

[Major-Tom]

Some sort of dreaded New-Keynesian over here with a preference towards sound macroeconomics and a social market economy.

Waiting on TLT to come in here and yell "dammit libling."

[The Portland Territory]

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.

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.

[The Portland Territory]

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.

Might as well start some debate

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?

[Constantinopolis]

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?

[Sanctissima]

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.

That barely even allows a nation to maintain a decent military, let alone other government functions. And education would always be a net-loss profit-wise, so chances are you'd have to almost completely cut the military budget in favour of maintaining a decent education system if the government's only revenue is tariffs and minimal revenue from sales taxes.

19th century Britain's primary economic issue was that it's almost complete disinterest in managing the economy beyond lingering Mercantilist sentiments resulted in extreme worker exploitation, child chimney sweepers, and the rise of Socialism within England proper.

[The of Japan]

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?

Sweden and Denmark are not socialist

[Constantinopolis]

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

Obviously. I know that. I was talking about the Soviet Union circa 1950-1980. Full employment, high economic equality, and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth.

[Socialist Union Of Deutschland]

Socialism.

[Telconi]

Nordic model capitalist.

[Liriena]

Sweden and Denmark are not socialist

Obviously. I know that. I was talking about the Soviet Union circa 1950-1980. Full employment, high economic equality, and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth.

There's an argument to be made that what ultimately doomed the Soviet Union was focusing so much on heavy industries and expanding its military power instead of consumer goods and agriculture.

[The of Japan]

Sweden and Denmark are not socialist

Obviously. I know that. I was talking about the Soviet Union circa 1950-1980. Full employment, high economic equality, and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth.

Why did is start stagnating in early 1980s?

[The Portland Territory]

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?

High standards of living, high wages, good employment rates, economic growth, "work" as in it's the best economic system for all people

Why can't socialism do that? Simply because there is a lack of motivation for innovation, for investing in the economy. Why would an investor ever want to put money in a system where he is regulated beyond belief, has to pay workers high wages for many jobs that aren't worth their hourly rate, high tax rates, and even capping his earnings where money is literally stolen from him by the government in the name of "equality"? Most people may have jobs in socialism but it will lead to recession because of a lack of investment

[Sanctissima]

Sweden and Denmark are not socialist

Obviously. I know that. I was talking about the Soviet Union circa 1950-1980. Full employment, high economic equality, and also high (or at least decent) rates of economic growth.

I don't think it can reasonably stated that the USSR had high economic growth, especially when compared to other more economically liberalized countries like the USA.



One of the USSR's main problems, arguably even its death-knell, was that its level of economic growth was almost stagnant (or at least, extremely gradual), which became extremely pronounced and evident in the 80's, contributing quite significantly to the social unrest that eventually caused the whole system to come crashing down.