Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[Rshermr]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

What's stupid about it? It doesn't have to be all one or all the other. Only narrow minded people think that is the case.

of course its stupid which is why you cant say how libsocialism could help an economy become successful even though you apparently imagine it can.

It helps in many different ways, giving people buying power, which in turn means they are also contributing to the economy, which ultimately helps businesses too. It makes for a more robust and healthier economy when you have more people participating. If people like you had your way, America would be nothing more than a 3rd world country by now with the poor WAY outnumbering the wealthy and even middle class, and we are already headed in that direction because of super rich corporations are actually buying off our politicians.

Yup. And to prove that ignorance is rampant, conservatives believe citizens united was a good thing.

 

[ChrisL]

It helps in many different ways, giving people buying power,.

so socialism gives people buying power? How? And how does that help an economy?

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure things out. Now, I know you are frightened of the "commies," but thinking that you can have a robust and healthy economy operating on capitalism alone is just silly and far fetched notion.

 

[Rshermr]

It helps in many different ways, giving people buying power,.

so socialism gives people buying power? How? And how does that help an economy?

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure things out. Now, I know you are frightened of the "commies," but thinking that you can have a robust and healthy economy operating on capitalism alone is just silly and far fetched notion.

Poor ignorant ed is a con troll, and an admitted Libertarian. So, the fact that Libertarianism has never existed in the real world should tell him something. That it does not tell him anything tells the rest of us about ed.

 

[CultureCitizen]

, because banks are in charge of creating most of the money in the economy.

again the conceptual ignorance is stunning. Our central bank determines how much money is allowed in the system. That is their reason for being?

You simply seem unable to read the references I post Ed.

 

[ChrisL]

It helps in many different ways, giving people buying power,.

so socialism gives people buying power? How? And how does that help an economy?

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure things out. Now, I know you are frightened of the "commies," but thinking that you can have a robust and healthy economy operating on capitalism alone is just silly and far fetched notion.

Poor ignorant ed is a con troll, and an admitted Libertarian. So, the fact that Libertarianism has never existed in the real world should tell him something. That it does not tell him anything tells the rest of us about ed.

Every group has their extremists, I suppose.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, because banks are in charge of creating most of the money in the economy.

again the conceptual ignorance is stunning. Our central bank determines how much money is allowed in the system. That is their reason for being?

You simply seem unable to read the references I post Ed.

how stupid would it be to read what a liberal thinks is important??? Why not tell us if it is banks or the Fed that determines how much money is created?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not.

dear, charity is not economic policy. They are unrelated. 1+1=2

and don't forget that liberals are bigots who think they are morally superior because they support crippling welfare when in reality conservatives give more to charity.

 

[Rshermr]

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not.

dear, charity is not economic policy. They are unrelated. 1+1=2

and don't forget that liberals are bigots who think they are morally superior because they support crippling welfare when in reality conservatives give more to charity.

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not.

dear, charity is not economic policy. They are unrelated. 1+1=2

and don't forget that liberals are bigots who think they are morally superior because they support crippling welfare when in reality conservatives give more to charity.

Watch what you are saying, eddie. The commies will be out to get you. Get your tin hat on as quickly as you can. And perhaps when you get a chance you can suggest where you got the idea anyone was talking about charity, me poor ignorant con troll. Because it will be impossible, as a con troll, to understand that people do not want charity. They want jobs that pay. And like all con troll, you support low pay, no unions, corporations with monopoly power, no minimum wage.
And all other con talking points. Because you do not have an actual working mind.

 

[ChrisL]

Because people who would otherwise be HOMELESS are not.

dear, charity is not economic policy. They are unrelated. 1+1=2

and don't forget that liberals are bigots who think they are morally superior because they support crippling welfare when in reality conservatives give more to charity.

Charitable donations are not enough . . . obviously.

 

[phoenyx]

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

I agree, but when having a serious discussion with any right winger it is better to have all the t's crossed.

Lol, I guess so .

Let me interject, if I can, one really important fact. Capitalism, even in a mixed economy, never works as advertised if the companies involved have a good deal of monopoly power. As even the authors of capitalism knew, capitalism requires certain conditions. And one of the main conditions was an unlimited number of companies offering a product or service. Which, if you look at it:
1. Is a condition that does not exist in any economy.
2. Is a condition that pretty much every company works to eliminate.
3. Is a condition that negates the possibility of capitalism working as an economic system.

I don't know about that. One thing though- I dislike the term capitalism. Some think it means that the 'golden rule' should apply, that being that those who have the gold should be able to make the rules; it's always been a concept that I loathe. I believe in a meritocracy. I believe capitalism was better at being a meritocracy then communism (as practiced as opposed to how it was originally defined), but it definitely needs fine tuning. Crony capitalism definitely has to go.

capitalism is 2 free guys freely trading because it make both better off

If only we could reduce capitalism to 2 free guys freely trading because it makes them both feel better . The real world is not nearly as simple as that. Here's an excerpt from a review of Naomi Klein's book "Disaster Capitalism"...

**Those of us who imagine economists to be mild souls preoccupied with tedious abstractions are in for a shock from The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein's stunning, polemic re-examination of the last 30-plus years in the history of free-market capitalism. If we bought the myth of corporate globalization as a benign and bloodless process, Klein has more jolts in store.

The Canadian Klein is a columnist for The Nation and The Guardian and a former fellow at the London School of Economics. Her work on this, her third book, began in 2004, when she spent time in Iraq reporting on the reconstruction process for Harper's magazine. Her research is massive, meticulously documented and laid out in fluid, accessible and intriguing stories.

Klein's indictment revolves around Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning guru of the University of Chicago School of Economics and the brains behind the movement for unregulated corporate trade, the elimination of public services and the eradication of organized labor.

Klein begins in the 1950s, the depths of the Cold War, when Friedman refined his theory of pure capitalism as a counter to the threat of communism and a radical alternative to the mixed checks-and-balances system that was installed under the influence of economist John Maynard Keynes to combat the Great Depression. Under Friedman's precise mathematical theorem, the only functions permitted for government are police and armies. Everything else should be privatized.

With eager financial support from corporate interests, Friedman's theories made the Chicago school the powerhouse of academic economics in the U.S. The search for a live test laboratory -- a nation to erase and re-create from scratch -- did not take long.

When Augusto Pinochet's military junta prepared for the takeover of Chile in 1973, Friedman's students handed him a complete plan of economic reform in advance. Friedman himself visited the new dictator, urging him to press even harder -- by dint of troops, tanks and death squads -- at selling state-owned property, utilities and services to American corporations. The plan also included eliminating public medical care, education and transportation; arresting, torturing and executing labor leaders, social workers, academics and other troublemakers; and throwing hundreds of thousands out of work. The aim was to shock the entire population into stunned acquiescence to the new corporate economic policies. The term in use was "shock therapy."

The effect was to impoverish the majority of the population while enriching those in power. International corporations, being on the plush end of the equation, were delighted. The Chicago Boys, as Friedman's students were known, were ready for similar actions in Argentina, southern Brazil, Bolivia and beyond. By the 1980s large segments of Africa and Asia also had submitted to Friedman's shock treatment...**

Emphasis on the last 2 paragraphs mine.

Read more at: Caution, 'Disaster Capitalism' at Work | Naomi Klein

 

[phoenyx]

Crony capitalism definitely has to go.

1)vwhen govt and business are separate thats called capitalism,

2) when govt and business work closely together, like in Obamacare, thats called socialism

3) crony capitalism is liberalism. Do you understand?

What I understand is that you don't know the definition of crony capitalism. Allow me to introduce to its introduction in wikipedia:
**Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.[1][2] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or businesspeople spills over into politics and government,[3] or when self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.**

Read more at: Crony capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[psikeyhackr]

I have searched this thread for the word "obsolescence" and have not found it. So what does Planned Obsolescence have to do with efficient economics?

Years ago I asked a PhD economist how an automobile engine worked. He could not explain it. I later posted this on the company bulletin board:

Economic Wargames

He did not say anything to me about it even though a fellow employeee asked me what he had said. He had a reputation for criticising discussions of economics.

30 years before the Moon landing engineers could design flying machines that could do 400 mph to fight WWII. So what sense does it make to keep redesigning machines that roll along the ground at less than 100 mph 47 years after the Moon landing?

Is consumerism with planned obsolescence really just an extremely inefficient use of natural resources while being efficient at keeping the lower classes running on a treadmill to make the rich richer? The Depreciation of all of the junk never gets subtracted from anywhere.

Neither the Socialists nor the Capitalists mention this. Do they even notice? A Swedish Socialist said he objected to my suggestion of making accounting mandatory in high school on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical.



psik

 

[phoenyx]

I have searched this thread for the word "obsolescence" and have not found it.

True. It is, however, mentioned in a documentary that is in this thread somewhere (perhaps more then one spot):

So what does Planned Obsolescence have to do with efficient economics?

Years ago I asked a PhD economist how an automobile engine worked. He could not explain it.

How would he know? He's an economist, not a mechanic .

I later posted this on the company bulletin board:

Economic Wargames

An interesting read.

He did not say anything to me about it even though a fellow employeee asked me what he had said. He had a reputation for criticising discussions of economics.

Perhaps he never bothered to read it?

30 years before the Moon landing engineers could design flying machines that could do 400 mph to fight WWII. So what sense does it make to keep redesigning machines that roll along the ground at less than 100 mph 47 years after the Moon landing?

I definitely think that some improvements have been made in cars since the moon landings...

Is consumerism with planned obsolescence really just an extremely inefficient use of natural resources while being efficient at keeping the lower classes running on a treadmill to make the rich richer?

I think so, yeah.

The Depreciation of all of the junk never gets subtracted from anywhere.

This is a point that I believe "The Story of Stuff" makes in great detail.

A Swedish Socialist said he objected to my suggestion of making accounting mandatory in high school on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical.

The notion that there is only one form of capitalism is silly. I think the -good- part of capitalism is that it can reward those who work hard and are innovative. I think the -bad- thing about capitalism is that it can fall into the "golden rule" trap, namely, "he who has the gold makes the rules". If thieves are the ones with all the gold, they'll just continue to fine tune the system so that they steal with greater and greater ease until they own as much of the world as the pride of the lower classes will allow.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So what does Planned Obsolescence have to do with efficient economics?

Years ago I asked a PhD economist how an automobile engine worked. He could not explain it.

How would he know? He's an economist, not a mechanic .

He knows how to drive. I saw him getting into an SUV with his much younger wife. A lable should not put a fence around a person's knowledge in a technological society when we have to make decisions about those technologies.

Knowing how an engine works is does not mean being a mechanic. I am not an automobile mechanic. A lawn mower engine works pretty much the same way. But then we have to read Shakespeare in school.

Perhaps he never bothered to read it?

Maybe, but I don't buy it. I had seen him write too many cutting supposed rebuttals to other economic commentary. How do you refure 8th grade algebra? I have communicated with other economists since then. One told me I was correct and that the textbooks are wrong. Very annoying!

The Depreciation of all of the junk never gets subtracted from anywhere.

This is a point that I believe "The Story of Stuff" makes in great detail.

I have seen that before but it does not specifically point out that the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods disappears. Economists lmost never mention NET Domestic Product. It gets about half a page in a 400 page economics book. They only subtract the depreciation of Capital Goods. So no matter what the socio-economic system is called that is defective algebra.

So teaching accounting to everyone would make explaining the bad algebra easy. But if the system depends on mass ignorance..... It does not matter what you call it then either.

psik

 

[phoenyx]

So what does Planned Obsolescence have to do with efficient economics?

Years ago I asked a PhD economist how an automobile engine worked. He could not explain it.

How would he know? He's an economist, not a mechanic .

He knows how to drive. I saw him getting into an SUV with his much younger wife. A label should not put a fence around a person's knowledge in a technological society when we have to make decisions about those technologies.

I don't think a label does that. But he may not have known how an automobile engine worked just the same...

Knowing how an engine works is does not mean being a mechanic. I am not an automobile mechanic. A lawn mower engine works pretty much the same way.

You may not be an automobile mechanic, but you certainly know a bit about mechanics.

But then we have to read Shakespeare in school.

I certainly think schools could do better then Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong, it certainly can be interesting to a point, especially if one considers it in the light of a film called Anonymous. I just think there are books and films that are more up to date as to what kids are going through today. Ofcourse, they're generally also more controversial, which is probably why schools stick to Shakespeare.

Perhaps he never bothered to read it?

Maybe, but I don't buy it. I had seen him write too many cutting supposed rebuttals to other economic commentary. How do you refute 8th grade algebra? I have communicated with other economists since then. One told me I was correct and that the textbooks are wrong. Very annoying!

Who knows. The good news is that there are people here who you can discuss economics with .

The Depreciation of all of the junk never gets subtracted from anywhere.

This is a point that I believe "The Story of Stuff" makes in great detail.

I have seen that before but it does not specifically point out that the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods disappears.

Alright, but it -does- emphasize that our natural resources are being converted into garbage and pollution at a pretty fast clip. I think in a way it goes a step further then you- all consumer goods originally come from our natural resources- if we keep on depleting them, we'll find a point where we run out. And ofcourse if we keep on polluting our environment and destroying ecosystems, we will get to a point where we simply can't sustain our current economic model as too many people will be dying from these "side effects".

Economists almost never mention NET Domestic Product. It gets about half a page in a 400 page economics book. They only subtract the depreciation of Capital Goods. So no matter what the socio-economic system is called that is defective algebra.

Or a defective (algebraic?) formula...

So teaching accounting to everyone would make explaining the bad algebra easy. But if the system depends on mass ignorance..... It does not matter what you call it then either.

I definitely think the current system depends on mass ignorance. I believe it's up to each of us to do our best to educate our fellow human beings as to what's really going on.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

**Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.

and that perfectly describes Obamacare or crony capitalism or fascism or Socialism or liberalism. Capitalism is when business and govt are separate, when business success depends 100% on the free market. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is consumerism with planned obsolescence

My forth grade teacher told us that they had a light bulb that lasted forever. He apparently didn't know that capitalism is competitive. 1+1=2

 

[phoenyx]

Is consumerism with planned obsolescence

My forth grade teacher told us that they had a light bulb that lasted forever. He apparently didn't know that capitalism is competitive. 1+1=2

Capitalism -can- be competitive. The problem is when you get monopolies, such as the Federal Reserve. In the case of the Federal Reserve, they are given the privilege of creating most of the money in the U.S. in the form of loans, and demanding that these loans be paid back, with interest. It's a swell system for the banking corporations that control the Federal Reserve, but it's lousy for everyone else.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is consumerism with planned obsolescence

My forth grade teacher told us that they had a light bulb that lasted forever. He apparently didn't know that capitalism is competitive. 1+1=2

Capitalism -can- be competitive. The problem is when you get monopolies, such as the Federal Reserve. In the case of the Federal Reserve, they are given the privilege of creating most of the money in the U.S. in the form of loans, and demanding that these loans be paid back, with interest. It's a swell system for the banking corporations that control the Federal Reserve, but it's lousy for everyone else.

most PH.D economists support the system. Do you with all your education and experience have a better system in mind????.

To suggest that Volker Greenspan Bernanke and Yellen were/are controlled by banking corporations is utterly stupid. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

that people do not want charity. They want jobs that pay.

dear, our subject was not people, but rather the homeless most of whom are mentally ill and not suited for jobs. 1+1=2