Basic tax / government waste theory

[Charles Stucker]

It was Fisher not Keynes who came up with the idea of counter-cyclical policies. Keynes was simply a credit grabbing attention whore. A critical reading of his general theory in particular is disheartening. There's no there there when examined.

ONe thing I have noted about economists; they call their science the "Miserable Science" (or some such) and claim it is because there are no easy choice. Funny, but it seems it is a miserable science because the science is so miserable.
They have no testing methods for their models and their conclusions can be so ludicrous that they reach insanity. I forget if it was Swift or Franklin who remarked that the "Economic Theorists" of their day had a system wherein every country would be best served by loading ships with good produced locally, sailing those ships out to sea, and sinking them, because that would let them all maintain a good export trade.
Marxism was an economic theory.
Socialism is another.
Neither works.

So much for the general Science of Economics.
To be air, the economists do sometimes get something right. the Law of Supply and Demand does work.

Unfortunately, politicians seem apt to take untested economic theories and gamble national fortunes on them.
Bad move.

 

[Oddball]

Economics is a field that has about a dozen (if that many) hard and fast laws, surrounded by thousands of difficult-to-impossible to physically prove theories.

The big problem with economics is that so many technocrats, like Keynes, like to act as though they're mind readers and manipulators of the masses. Someone needs to get to these ivory tower know-it-alls (see: Paul Krugman) with the valuable information that people are inherently chaotic and subjective, and that what they did yesterday is virtually a zero predictor as to what they may do next week.

 

[Toronado3800]

It is just soo complicated. First you need relatively free markets and the threat of near starvation to inspire humans to work. Then you need laws and regulations to keep them from screwing eachother. Then you can't just let your economy be solely based on product x because you need the ability to produce a fair number of tanks to defend your borders.

 

[Oddball]

You don't need laws to keep people from screwing each other. There are plenty of laws against fraud and Ponzi scams, and that didn't stop Ken lay and Bernie Madoff.

All you need are laws for restitution to the victims (if possible) and incarceration of violent antisocial people.

I can think of no economy that has ever sustained itself has operated solely on one product, so that's pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Neubarth]

It is just soo complicated. First you need relatively free markets and the threat of near starvation to inspire humans to work. Then you need laws and regulations to keep them from screwing eachother. Then you can't just let your economy be solely based on product x because you need the ability to produce a fair number of tanks to defend your borders.

If we annexed Mexico and Central America, we would not have any real borders to defend. Canada is just a more sensible extension of the SOMEWHAT UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA. With the annexation of Mexico and Central America we could set up our independent NORTH AMERICAN ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ZONE that I have talked about for years. The hell with the rest of the world.

 

[Charles Stucker]

With the annexation of Mexico and Central America we could set up our independent NORTH AMERICAN ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ZONE that I have talked about for years.

Perhaps we could try for the Pac rim and a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"

Not sure if this is a moment brought to you by Godwin.

 

[Toronado3800]

If we annexed Mexico and Central America....

Somehow I've never been against that idea myself. Need to do like we did with Texas, get folks in Mexico City to riot in support of a U.S. invasion. Even with how messed up we can be sometime it won't take much to improve the life of the average Mexican.

 

[Limey]

ONe thing I have noted about economists; they call their science the "Miserable Science" (or some such) and claim it is because there are no easy choice. Funny, but it seems it is a miserable science because the science is so miserable.

The dismal science is a reference to Malthusian analysis. It actually describes how valuable economic theory can be. For example, you may turn around and reject Malthus' population analysis and refer to aspects such as the innovation process. That would be fair enough. However, we can still refer to how Malthusian analysis is used in modern growth analysis. As Keynes' remarked, folk are typically slaves to the writings of defunct long-dead economists.

They have no testing methods for their models and their conclusions can be so ludicrous that they reach insanity.

Where did you get this idea from? Econometrics provides rich testing mechanisms which are now used in all scientific disciplines.

Marxism was an economic theory.

And the theory spawned can be easily tested. For example, Marxist theory gave us efficiency wage theory which can be tested through empirical investigation of the nature of unemployment

To be air, the economists do sometimes get something right. the Law of Supply and Demand does work.

Depends on the market studied. The laws of supply & demand certainly cannot be applied to understand the labour market. You need socialists to help you understand wage determination.

 

[Limey]

The big problem with economics is that so many technocrats, like Keynes, like to act as though they're mind readers and manipulators of the masses.

A rather strange remark. Keynes' analysis is based on the study of the consequences of uncertainty. You're probably referring to bastardised Keynesianism and the IS-LM approach.

Someone needs to get to these ivory tower know-it-alls (see: Paul Krugman) with the valuable information that people are inherently chaotic and subjective, and that what they did yesterday is virtually a zero predictor as to what they may do next week.

Krugman's neoclassical nature ensures that he understands subjectivity rather well. The problem with the fellow is that his trade theory approach was too conservative. Its not possible to refer to issues such as economies of scale and assume that trade liberalisation will always be the optimal policy

 

[Oddball]

Get bent, Karl.

 

[Limey]

Get bent, Karl.

No bother. I'll assume that you've taken onboard the basic mistakes that you made about Keynes and Krugman.

 

[Oddball]

I make no mistakes about Fabian socialists and communists, tovarich.

 

[Limey]

I make no mistakes about Fabian socialists and communists, tovarich.

Its also not a good idea to confuse Fabianism and communism. I suppose the common link is their joint failure to protect worker property rights.

Keynes and Krugman aren't leftwingers. Keynes was motivated by the protection of capitalism. Krugman's main output has been highly orthodox in nature (see, for example, Ben Fine's critique of the so-called 'new trade theory')

 

[namaan]

Just wanted to chime in and say thanks for the great link