What is the purpose of economics?

[Shikica]

I have my own opinion but I'm uninterested in a dialectic right now, I'd rather just hear what arguments others have come up with on their own. You can respond to each others' arguments but please contribute to the list of positions if you can

 

[Jomama]

Huh? Such an open ended question. What's the purpose of Sociology and Biology?

In short, if modern people eat through distributed food systems, then we are smart to study those distribution systems. What makes economics superior to other social sciences is that it quantifies behavior versus opinion. Everyone says they want to buy American but if we watch the dollars, the same people go to WalMart and buy Chinese crap. Economics quantifies and helps us understand what actually happens in society. It also points out in stark terms how inefficient and ill-prepared central government planning is.

 

[Shikica]

Huh? Such an open ended question. What's the purpose of Sociology and Biology?

In short, if modern people eat through distributed food systems, then we are smart to study those distribution systems. What makes economics superior to other social sciences is that it quantifies behavior versus opinion. Everyone says they want to buy American but if we watch the dollars, the same people go to WalMart and buy Chinese crap. Economics quantifies and helps us understand what actually happens in society. It also points out in stark terms how inefficient and ill-prepared central government planning is.

So to you the purpose of economics is to understand how society behaves?

 

[oldfart]

I use an old standard which is out of vogue with most authors and schools now: "Economics is the study of the creation and distribution of wealth".

 

[Rshermr]

I use an old standard which is out of vogue with most authors and schools now: "Economics is the study of the creation and distribution of wealth".

Yeah. So said Samuelson, but with more words. I think his definition grew with his age. But I agree, probably because I am old as dirt. Economics in 1970 was a more civil pursuit. At least in the little berg I studied in.

 

[georgephillip]

I have my own opinion but I'm uninterested in a dialectic right now, I'd rather just hear what arguments others have come up with on their own. You can respond to each others' arguments but please contribute to the list of positions if you can

CH Douglas asked a similar question about a century ago: what is the purpose of an economy?

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Douglas claimed there were three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system:

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
My choice is #3.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have my own opinion but I'm uninterested in a dialectic right now, I'd rather just hear what arguments others have come up with on their own. You can respond to each others' arguments but please contribute to the list of positions if you can

The purpose of modern economics is to teach socialists why socialism is inferior to capitalism.Anything else largely a waste of time or the perpetration of a fraud.

 

[regent]

So why is economics called a soft science?

 

[Jomama]

Because it is a social science and events are not perfectly repeatable or perfectly predictable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because it is a social science and events are not perfectly repeatable or perfectly predictable.

They seem perfectly repeatable. Socialist and communist countries always fail because a few lazy arrogant bureaucrats with other people's money don't manage as well as millions of entrepreneurs with their own hard earned money and always increasing expertise.

 

[miketx]

The main purpose of economics, before it became a tool of the government, was to grow and support infrastructure so we can survive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The main purpose of economics, before it became a tool of the government, was to grow and support infrastructure so we can survive.

absurd of course people always made infrastructure as needed from stone age forward. Economics was far more general than that usually about most efficient way to produce, distribute goods and services.

 

[miketx]

The main purpose of economics, before it became a tool of the government, was to grow and support infrastructure so we can survive.

absurd of course people always made infrastructure as needed from stone age forward. Economics was far more general than that usually about most efficient way to produce, distribute goods and services.

Which without infrastructure, you can't distribute anything.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The main purpose of economics, before it became a tool of the government, was to grow and support infrastructure so we can survive.

absurd of course people always made infrastructure as needed from stone age forward. Economics was far more general than that usually about most efficient way to produce, distribute goods and services.

Which without infrastructure, you can't distribute anything.

all agree, and???????????????????????

 

[Igrok_]

to make people wealthy. Or, better, to eliminate poverty

 

[Rshermr]

to make people wealthy. Or, better, to eliminate poverty

Interesting. The United States is ranked 34th worst of the 35 most advanced nations in the world by Unicef. So our economy, whatever you would like to call it, is not doing well at all for the poor. But great for the wealthy. No surprise to economists.
Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th)

 

[Igrok_]

to make people wealthy. Or, better, to eliminate poverty

Interesting. The United States is ranked 34th worst of the 35 most advanced nations in the world by Unicef. So our economy, whatever you would like to call it, is not doing well at all for the poor. But great for the wealthy. No surprise to economists.
Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th)

yeah, i thought about that. The capitalism - is the system when the smartest wins. The wealthiest, the healthiest and so on. It is a point to think about, where is fairness... Maybe the system is ok, but people, who has this freedom are not doing right anf do not help poor enough.

 

[Rshermr]

to make people wealthy. Or, better, to eliminate poverty

Interesting. The United States is ranked 34th worst of the 35 most advanced nations in the world by Unicef. So our economy, whatever you would like to call it, is not doing well at all for the poor. But great for the wealthy. No surprise to economists.
Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th)

yeah, i thought about that. The capitalism - is the system when the smartest wins. The wealthiest, the healthiest and so on. It is a point to think about, where is fairness... Maybe the system is ok, but people, who has this freedom are not doing right anf do not help poor enough.

Lots of goods and bads to do with corporations. I would like my car made by a corporation, but want my roads and parks managed by the gov. Just the way I see things.
I am old as dirt. Not bragging, more like complaining I guess. But for a number of years I was an officer of a company going public. IPO. And the problems I got my nose rubbed in was that corporations are mostly run based on Financials, and stock valuation. Problem with that is that both are a good deal away from RUNNING the company. So what I saw was a lot of concern about the sales and profit over the next few quarters. No interest at all in the people, and little understanding of what needed to happen to make the company work well over the next few years.

 

[Moonglow]

I have my own opinion but I'm uninterested in a dialectic right now, I'd rather just hear what arguments others have come up with on their own. You can respond to each others' arguments but please contribute to the list of positions if you can

 

[Igrok_]

to make people wealthy. Or, better, to eliminate poverty

Interesting. The United States is ranked 34th worst of the 35 most advanced nations in the world by Unicef. So our economy, whatever you would like to call it, is not doing well at all for the poor. But great for the wealthy. No surprise to economists.
Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th)

yeah, i thought about that. The capitalism - is the system when the smartest wins. The wealthiest, the healthiest and so on. It is a point to think about, where is fairness... Maybe the system is ok, but people, who has this freedom are not doing right anf do not help poor enough.

Lots of goods and bads to do with corporations. I would like my car made by a corporation, but want my roads and parks managed by the gov. Just the way I see things.
I am old as dirt. Not bragging, more like complaining I guess. But for a number of years I was an officer of a company going public. IPO. And the problems I got my nose rubbed in was that corporations are mostly run based on Financials, and stock valuation. Problem with that is that both are a good deal away from RUNNING the company. So what I saw was a lot of concern about the sales and profit over the next few quarters. No interest at all in the people, and little understanding of what needed to happen to make the company work well over the next few years.

The basic assumption here is that if corporation goes well, when its employees benefit too. And if the whole economy consists of well-being corporations, the society lives in prosperity. That works if there is place for all kind of companies and the place for people who can't make money...