What is the purpose of economics?

[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.

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...

If you look at capitalism as it was envisioned, and as it has evolved, they are two greatly different things. To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power. Even in the early understanding of Capitalism, say by Adam Smith, it was true that monopoly power was thought to be likely but unusual. The belief was that monopoly power was highly detrimental to the "system" of capitalism. That is, it would be situational or unusual in nature, and would need to be managed by government or capitalism would not be workable.
So, the belief was, there would be cases where monopoly was natural and required - in the modern world, where you did not want 10 sets of wires strung to allow many companies to supply power. So you have one per area, each a regulated monopoly, as in todays power companies. Each is a regional monopoly, not national or greater in geographic reach. Nothing new about that concept.
Then, you had monopolies that would result from wealth and mergers and acquisitions. Look at companies like Boeing. Used to be a dozen major airplane manufacturers. Now there are 3. That type of monopoly was a concern, from very early on. Consider the Boston Tea Party, an event of protest against the East India Company and the British Government that was controlled to a large extent by that company. Early on, the colonists and most of our founding fathers were justifiably concerned with corporations, corporate power, and the influence of corporations on our government. And on the economics of the time. So, monopoly power controls, artificially, supply and demand of product and labor. And by so doing, prices and the distribution of income and wealth. And, as corporations and the corporatists get wealthier and wealthier, they tend to control our government and the laws of the country.
So excuse my verbose post. But I have been trying to understand economics since I got a degree in the subject 50 years ago. So much for my rant on Capitalism. I have not attacked communism, nor extended my rant on capitalism to the next step - Libertarianism (which I put in a large pot that includes communism, as economic systems that have never worked in a successful country), but the alternatives are out there, and they all are (in my mind) mixed economies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

 

[Shikica]

To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

Ah..? I'll give you an example of monopoly, just pick a country.

United States?

The DoL has an absolute monopoly on the sale and issuance of drivers licenses, among other things.

 

[regent]

To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

Ah..? I'll give you an example of monopoly, just pick a country.

United States?

The DoL has an absolute monopoly on the sale and issuance of drivers licenses, among other things.

Water companies, gas companies and other public utilities are usually monopolies, and a number of others.

 

[Rshermr]

To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

Ah..? I'll give you an example of monopoly, just pick a country.

United States?

The DoL has an absolute monopoly on the sale and issuance of drivers licenses, among other things.

Water companies, gas companies and other public utilities are usually monopolies, and a number of others.

As a country, we decided over a century ago that monopolies should not be allowed, with exceptions. Those were:
1 Natural monopolies, like utilities, where none of us believe it would be good to set up multiple sets of pipes, wires, and so forth. Simple enough. They are private regulated monopolies.
2. Geographic monopolies - where only one company exists to provide a product or service in a limited geography.
3. Technical Monopolies - first to market companies with a copyright or patent. Limited time, to the time of the patent.
4. Government Monopolies - we long ago decided we did not want multiple government agencies doing the same thing.

The problem that remains is Oligopolies with great monopoly power. Like Boeing, one of two really large airframe manufacturers. Or Microsoft. And because they are desired by the conservatives, they have gotten more and more power.

 

[william the wie]

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".

i
While I generally agree with that definition as long as wealth is defined as an implicit or explicit income stream I more generally consider it a substitute for violent Darwinian competition. I am less certain of the use of current tools that concentrate on money flows without enough consideration given to free cashflow and balance sheets are effective measures. It appears that economics is being rebuilt with data mining to make the reality analysis and theoretical analysis to come further into sync..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem that remains is Oligopolies with great monopoly power. Like Boeing, one of two really large airframe manufacturers. .

of course if Boeing is a problem rather than a great national blessing you would have been able to say why! What does your inability teach us?

 

[Rshermr]

The problem that remains is Oligopolies with great monopoly power. Like Boeing, one of two really large airframe manufacturers. .

of course if Boeing is a problem rather than a great national blessing you would have been able to say why! What does your inability teach us?

Did anyone besides me notice a conservative troll saying something that makes no sense at all, as usual. Sounds like only a statement that would come from a congenital idiot. Oh, yeah, I know who it was. He is, however, really easy to ignore.

 

[Shikica]

To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

Ah..? I'll give you an example of monopoly, just pick a country.

United States?

The DoL has an absolute monopoly on the sale and issuance of drivers licenses, among other things.

Water companies, gas companies and other public utilities are usually monopolies, and a number of others.

As a country, we decided over a century ago that monopolies should not be allowed, with exceptions. Those were:
1 Natural monopolies, like utilities, where none of us believe it would be good to set up multiple sets of pipes, wires, and so forth. Simple enough. They are private regulated monopolies.
2. Geographic monopolies - where only one company exists to provide a product or service in a limited geography.
3. Technical Monopolies - first to market companies with a copyright or patent. Limited time, to the time of the patent.
4. Government Monopolies - we long ago decided we did not want multiple government agencies doing the same thing.

The problem that remains is Oligopolies with great monopoly power. Like Boeing, one of two really large airframe manufacturers. Or Microsoft. And because they are desired by the conservatives, they have gotten more and more power.

The problem isn't Oligopolies persay, but rather oligopolies that cooperate with each other to manipulate the market (thus acting as a monopoly). Boeing is not an example of that. Boeing has what is considered a monopoly on many airplane related markets, but it's considered okay because of how expensive it is to make airplanes and the amount of resources needed to have a competitive market.

 

[Rshermr]

To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

Ah..? I'll give you an example of monopoly, just pick a country.

United States?

The DoL has an absolute monopoly on the sale and issuance of drivers licenses, among other things.

Water companies, gas companies and other public utilities are usually monopolies, and a number of others.

As a country, we decided over a century ago that monopolies should not be allowed, with exceptions. Those were:
1 Natural monopolies, like utilities, where none of us believe it would be good to set up multiple sets of pipes, wires, and so forth. Simple enough. They are private regulated monopolies.
2. Geographic monopolies - where only one company exists to provide a product or service in a limited geography.
3. Technical Monopolies - first to market companies with a copyright or patent. Limited time, to the time of the patent.
4. Government Monopolies - we long ago decided we did not want multiple government agencies doing the same thing.

The problem that remains is Oligopolies with great monopoly power. Like Boeing, one of two really large airframe manufacturers. Or Microsoft. And because they are desired by the conservatives, they have gotten more and more power.

The problem isn't Oligopolies persay, but rather oligopolies that cooperate with each other to manipulate the market (thus acting as a monopoly). Boeing is not an example of that. Boeing has what is considered a monopoly on many airplane related markets, but it's considered okay because of how expensive it is to make airplanes and the amount of resources needed to have a competitive market.

I am not making value judgements. I am simply saying that by definition, Boeing is indeed an oligopoly. And Oligopolies as explained in every single econ text are not good for the people. Good for Boeing, good for investors, good for those politicians being paid by Boeing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

of course that's totally stupid and liberal :
1) we have anti trust which both sides agree upon
2) we have competition which prevents monopoly
3) businesses look for monopolies or close to them since they are complacent and thus easy to compete against
4) the possibility of a temporary monopoly and the profits it would bring encourage most new inventions and thus an increase in our standard of living
5) there are no examples of monopolies nowadays.
6) monopolies are mentioned only because brainwashed fool communists love to parrot Marx.

Ah..? I'll give you an example of monopoly, just pick a country.

United States?

The DoL has an absolute monopoly on the sale and issuance of drivers licenses, among other things.

Water companies, gas companies and other public utilities are usually monopolies, and a number of others.

As a country, we decided over a century ago that monopolies should not be allowed, with exceptions. Those were:
1 Natural monopolies, like utilities, where none of us believe it would be good to set up multiple sets of pipes, wires, and so forth. Simple enough. They are private regulated monopolies.
2. Geographic monopolies - where only one company exists to provide a product or service in a limited geography.
3. Technical Monopolies - first to market companies with a copyright or patent. Limited time, to the time of the patent.
4. Government Monopolies - we long ago decided we did not want multiple government agencies doing the same thing.

The problem that remains is Oligopolies with great monopoly power. Like Boeing, one of two really large airframe manufacturers. Or Microsoft. And because they are desired by the conservatives, they have gotten more and more power.

The problem isn't Oligopolies persay, but rather oligopolies that cooperate with each other to manipulate the market (thus acting as a monopoly). Boeing is not an example of that. Boeing has what is considered a monopoly on many airplane related markets, but it's considered okay because of how expensive it is to make airplanes and the amount of resources needed to have a competitive market.

I am not making value judgements. I am simply saying that by definition, Boeing is indeed an oligopoly. And Oligopolies as explained in every single econ text are not good for the people. Good for Boeing, good for investors, good for those politicians being paid by Boeing.

The genius liberal strikes again!!. So lets break it up to get out of the passenger airline manufacturing business. We have too much manufacturing here anyway!!!