Why economists are wrong

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Misaki, Aug 1, 2011.

  1. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    The experts in political economy say: spend more money, and employment will go up.

    This is wrong. The decisions made during spending are important to whether it will raise employment and help the poor, and for a simple reason: charities are not in the business of giving people jobs. Over the last two years, over five dozen American billionaires have pledged to give the majority of their wealth to a worthy cause, but many of the poor in the US are more concerned with the basic necessities of living—food, shelter—that philanthropy does not tend to provide.

    The unreliability of the political process, currently locked in a battle over reducing spending, means that it falls on every individual to do what they can to support the nation's economy. Most people are already aware of this—but "what I can do" is, in fact, the opposite of what many people think. The belief that someone in the system, somewhere out there, is directing the flow of resources to where they are most needed misguides people into doing things that would seem to directly contradict common sense.

    But these actions are completely rational, because support for accepted measures of success is the basis of any stable society. Any change in the ideas of what it means to 'succeed' should not be taken lightly, and must be made with careful deliberation on the concepts that hold society together. The United States of America were formed around the idea that what is best for the individual is best for society, given the interactions of competing goals that result in a civilized framework. The consequence is the assumption that the way to help society, and reduce the economic problems that exist in the current time, is to progress towards nominal success within the current framework.

    This informing by society of individual success, and consequent progression by the individual in the direction indicated by society, cannot be seen to lead to a desirable result when the goals which were originally critical to the determination of the framework have been removed from the decision-making process. The framework attempts to conform to reality, but does not predict the changes that will occur or the effect these changes will have on people's goals, and cannot be relied on to dictate accurate standards of success independent of the calculations of the multitudes that comprise the nation at any given point in history. The continued affirmation of goals is necessary to the maintenance of an environment that supports those goals, and the absence of this input is one of the reasons for the rise in financial complexity that lead to the financial crisis.

    What the nation would benefit most from, therefore, is a framework that does not dictate a standard of success, but instead allows that standard to exist independent of the framework that all of society conforms to.


    What does this mean for the present? The idea of working as hard as you can, and spending as much money as your income will allow, is not a measure of achievement that leads to lower unemployment or a balanced society with equal opportunity for everyone. While the American constitution fiercely defends the right for people to do this if they so wish, a framework that encourages everyone to think this is the right thing to do is not one that will address the problems of unemployment and inequality that currently exist.

    The best things people can do to help the lower-income segments of society are to be more careful about purchasing products that lack sufficient competition to bring them down to a reasonable price, to avoid working excessively if the only benefit is to be able to purchase such products, and to support changes to the framework of society that encourage other people to act with similar economic prudence by removing the emphasis on financial success as a measure of personal worth.

    Americans need to focus on conserving work so there is a share of it for everyone who is willing to work smarter and not harder, in order to achieve the confidence in one's actions that is essential for spiritual and psychological health. This requires both freedom of choice and a way to measure progress in the direction one chooses, whether it is efficiency of work, annual income, time available for other goals, or the amount contributed to one's company or the nation in the form of taxes or excess value.

    Economists are not going to fix the economy, since they see their job only as knowing how to make the numbers go up and where those numbers go is not their responsibility—and after all, maybe it isn't!—and while the President means the best for the nation, he is dependent on his economic advisors and partisan conflicts have drawn attention away from the real problems that many people are reminded of every day. The future, as always, lies in the hands of the people.


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-s4tzUIXA]荒野流転[/ame]


    Detailed explanation of causes

    One-step plan to eliminating unemployment


    notes from yesterday

    theme: what you can do to help the poor
    why economists are wrong, low consumer demand
    not their responsibility... well maybe it isn't
    make the numbers go up. don't think about which numbers are going up, can be those of fin. inst. Spending choices seen as outside realm of expertise.
    having a choice removes excuses. can longer hide behind the system.
    the President depends on economic advisors. but they only advise how to make the numbers go up, since goals of people are not clear.
    rational - how to help - work harder to help unemployed, purchase expensive products to help the poor, important: aggregate effects of millions
    work smarter, not harder
    missing from equations: what people think they can do to help the economy
    US culture: bettering self means benefit to society, so wrong standards lead to misunderstanding of solution to society's economic problems
    work conservation
    pushing limits - amount of work done, vs efficiency and productivity while working
    two things you can do... work less but available, and pay more attention to purchases
    nation is being more careful about spending, we should do the same
    confidence in one's actions is essential for spiritual and psychological health, requires both freedom of choice and a way to measure progress.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,762
    Thanks Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,061
    Economists are educated, therefore they must be stupid. Sounds like typical teabagger logic.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Shiiro601229
    Offline

    Shiiro601229 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    27
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Ratings:
    +6
    It's amazing... How average people claim to know the details about everything... There are levels of intelligence that separate people from other people. There are below average, average minus, average, average plus, and above average. (My own personal ratings) Most members of the Tea Party are somewhere between average and average minus. This means they have just enough intelligence to form an opinion, but not enough intelligence to realize they don't know everything. Go study some economics, Misaki. Report back in 4 years. Thank you for your service.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ba1614
    Offline

    ba1614 Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,812
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Deep in the Northern Woods
    Ratings:
    +876
    Do you seriously think policy like this part you didn't post from the blog is a good idea?

    From the posted link:


    " President Obama announces that due to the high level of unemployment and lack of consumer demand, companies should feel justified in reducing their payroll costs by lowering the wage rate for all employees working full-time, but giving employees the option of retaining the original wage rate by working less time. This will allow companies to make new hires at lower wages than current employees while retaining skilled workers if consumer demand for the company's products increases. Companies that feel they are profitable enough can leave wages and salaries the way they were, but still give the choice of an increased wage rate for those who want to work less. This would be a permanent change in how wages work, a direct opposite of the overtime pay system.

    Or it can be a law, and businesses can choose to either have lower payroll costs or give pay raises to their employees to prevent them from quitting."
     
  5. sparky
    Offline

    sparky VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +341
    so the rationale is to accept less, and work harder ?


    you first.....

     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    In an extremely dumbed down version of what they're saying, I suppose.

    Certainly it's wrong in the way you characterized it.



    Philanthopy is not the solution to the economy, that's for damned sure.

    We do not have a centrally planned economy. Resources go to where the Banksters can make the most money off them. Right now, that's NOT America



    Is it? What if the gatekeepers of money don't benefit from working with this society? What if the gatekeepers benefit from destroying this economy?



    Which is EXACTLY what has NOT BEEN HAPPENING for the last 40 years.





    No, the United States was NOT formed aound the idea of what is best for the individual was best for society.

    I think your contradicting yourself, now. On one hand you understand that we do NOT have a centrally planned economy, on the other, you imply that we do.

    What happens when some people's success leads to pain for the REST of society, amigo?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    See, the problem that you seem to overlook is that by generalizing about other people, you show your intellectual level to be significantly less than you claim. Just sayin'. I know this because I really do have an exceptionally high intellect.

    Idiot.
     
  8. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,973
    i have to ask....why do people with such high intellects hang out on the net? is it to show the lesser how intellectual you are? seems someone with all this high intellect would find the net rather un rewarding?
     
  9. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Thanks Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,261


    [​IMG]
     
  10. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    My even higher intellect looks down on you peons of only exceptional intellect.:eusa_whistle:
     

Share This Page