Slavery versus modern employment

[thegreekdog]

Yes, to be clear, I blame both parties, but I place more blame on the government than on corporations. As you have admitted on multiple occasions, corporations are beholden to shareholders (who likely live in Texas, not in Pennsylvania), not to the general public of rural Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the government in Harrisburg is beholden to the people of rural Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is their failing that will cause the potential problems.

[BigBallinStalin]

People need to learn more about economics... At least micro....

Explain. I never claim to be an expert in economics, but economics is more art than science. Too many assumptions are often made that are just false. This is why so many experts can disagree so widely.

Economics is related to everything in life. It can be applied, but sometimes something can't be quantified. This in turn leads to certain inabilities.

Granted, just because something like GDP overlooks services that have nonmarket value (e.g. stay-at-home moms) lends to the fact that GDP is imperfect, but still useful.

F. A. Hayek once said, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men what little they know about what they imagine they can design."

Economists have shown that FDR's government spending didn't get the US out of the Great Depression, economists have proven that minimum wage does cause unemployment, economics can be used to explain human behavior like spontaneous order, the Coase theorem, and what's great about economics is that it's related and useful to every science out there.

It's all interconnected with economics.

____________________________


If you're really interested in learning about economics, I'll recommend a book for you, and if you ever have questions about it, you can just PM me, and I'll explain. Deal?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, to be clear, I blame both parties, but I place more blame on the government than on corporations. As you have admitted on multiple occasions, corporations are beholden to shareholders (who likely live in Texas, not in Pennsylvania), not to the general public of rural Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the government in Harrisburg is beholden to the people of rural Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is their failing that will cause the potential problems.

I am not sure blaming one or the other more really matters. We can perhaps impact voting in PA (we two, anyway) than shareholder opinions, but the real truth is it gets back to education.

When I am dealing with supposed "regulators" basically seem to think once water goes underground, its gone and that simply monitoring the surface water in streams is the only real mitigation needed.... this is much more than a simple failure of opinion.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, to be clear, I blame both parties, but I place more blame on the government than on corporations. As you have admitted on multiple occasions, corporations are beholden to shareholders (who likely live in Texas, not in Pennsylvania), not to the general public of rural Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the government in Harrisburg is beholden to the people of rural Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is their failing that will cause the potential problems.

I am not sure blaming one or the other more really matters. We can perhaps impact voting in PA (we two, anyway) than shareholder opinions, but the real truth is it gets back to education.

When I am dealing with supposed "regulators" basically seem to think once water goes underground, its gone and that simply monitoring the surface water in streams is the only real mitigation needed.... this is much more than a simple failure of opinion.

That's insane. You're clearly not dealing with actual regulators (or else they are feeding you lies).

[PLAYER57832]

People need to learn more about economics... At least micro....

Explain. I never claim to be an expert in economics, but economics is more art than science. Too many assumptions are often made that are just false. This is why so many experts can disagree so widely.

Economics is related to everything in life. It can be applied, but sometimes something can't be quantified. This in turn leads to certain inabilities.

Granted, just because something like GDP overlooks services that have nonmarket value (e.g. stay-at-home moms) lends to the fact that GDP is imperfect, but still useful.

I see, so you want us to pay attention to formulations based on known incorrect data instead of just looking at real, true, hard data? because that seems to be what you are arguing.

F. A. Hayek once said, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men what little they know about what they imagine they can design."

Nice try, but I read plenty of fiction. I just don't confuse it with fact. Scientists.. those folks that economists too often like to dismiss as "not understanding the real situation" are trained to look beyond the imagined and our biases. Economists, sadly are most definitely not! In fact, as you describe, they too often celebrate those biases and perpetuate them with projections that support projections based upon their prior assumptions.

Economists have shown that FDR's government spending didn't get the US out of the Great Depression, economists have proven that minimum wage does cause unemployment, economics can be used to explain human behavior like spontaneous order, the Coase theorem, and what's great about economics is that it's related and useful to every science out there.

And statistics "prove" that beds, hospitals are the most dangerous places to be...
No, the truth is that economics is just a tool and it is far more often misused than used. If you use it without understanding its limitations or specifically clarifying them, then it is worse than useless, it distorts completely.

I won't get into FDR, except that I can dig up a few economists who firmly disagree. I will say that higher wages only result in fewer jobs in the immediate future. Mostly, it pushes already failing businesses down a bit sooner and encourages employers to let go employees they would likely let go anyway. (never mind what excuse they give -- much easier to say "i am firing you because of the minimum wage change", rather than "I am firing you because you keep showing up late and only work in a half-assed manner) After just a year or so the employment rates go right back where they were. THAT is what economics REALLY shows.

It's all interconnected with economics.

Economics is a description of human activity and events. It is not a predictive force. It can offer some understanding, but like any other kind of statistics, is too often misused more than benefits. To even put forward that figures with less than 2% accuracy rates should dictate our behavior over and above other factors that actually have predictive validity is insane. Yet,t hat is exactly what economists too often ask us to do.

If you're really interested in learning about economics, I'll recommend a book for you, and if you ever have questions about it, you can just PM me, and I'll explain. Deal?

[/quote]
Cute. It doesn't take a PhD in engineering to know that a dam is only as good as its foundation ties. It doesn' take a PhD in hydrology to know that you need a bigger bridge to go over the Mississippi than to cross the neighborhood creek. I am not going to get into arguing the specifics of particular economic theories because I don't consider much of any of it to be valid. And, the evidence I have is the failure of virtually all predictions.



Or, to put it another way. I would trust an engineer over an average citizen to say whether a particular hillslope can support a house. At the same time, if we go by and see that the wall that engineer is building sags.... Then it doesn't take a PhD to know this particular engineer screwed up. So, too, with economics. Its a LOT easier to see the failings. The problem is, economists too often try to cover up their mistakes with a bunch of "explanations" that are really just ideology.

[BigBallinStalin]

.......................................


PLAYER, if what you say is true, then economics can no way explain human behavior, how the Soviet Union economically collapsed, how the Great Depression happened, or how government spending to remove people from recession isn't as beneficial to the economy as once thought, or how even inflation and its consequences. Economics can also be used to show how to improve the lives of billions of sub-Saharan Africans.

The problem with economics from the masses' perspectives is that they've been fed tons of erroneous information over the years (or haven't even been educated on the topic at all). So, it's also an economists job to lift people from these biased preconceptions.

Yes, much of it is theoretically because the subject matter a lot of times can't be quantified; however, when explaining concepts in microeconomics it isn't theoretical, but easily observable. For macroeconomics, there's plenty of room for guessing, and over time others are proven right and others wrong.

In a sense, economics can be seen as a philosophy, and over the decades certain ideas win over other ideas by putting them into practice and/or having them observed (for example, socialist or Marxists economists' ideas and theories losing out to Austrian school, realist, Keynesian, yada yada). Now Keynesian is on it's way out...

Economics is everywhere. You're just refusing to even want to begin to start seeing. Economics is a way of seeing things in a new light; it's just another extremely useful tool to view the world from.

[PLAYER57832]

.......................................


PLAYER, if what you say is true, then economics can no way explain human behavior, how the Soviet Union economically collapsed, how the Great Depression happened, or how government spending to remove people from recession isn't as beneficial to the economy as once thought, or how even inflation and its consequences. Economics can also be used to show how to improve the lives of billions of sub-Saharan Africans.

No, now you are trying to claim I said something I did not. You can look at all of those events and see causes in economics. The problem is that there is not enough understanding of all that to provide predictive value.

The problem with economics from the masses' perspectives is that they've been fed tons of erroneous information over the years (or haven't even been educated on the topic at all). So, it's also an economists job to lift people from these biased preconceptions.

Yes, much of it is theoretically because the subject matter a lot of times can't be quantified; however, when explaining concepts in microeconomics it isn't theoretical, but easily observable. For macroeconomics, there's plenty of room for guessing, and over time others are proven right and others wrong.

In a sense, economics can be seen as a philosophy, and over the decades certain ideas win over other ideas by putting them into practice and/or having them observed (for example, socialist or Marxists economists' ideas and theories losing out to Austrian school, realist, Keynesian, yada yada). Now Keynesian is on it's way out...

Economics is everywhere. You're just refusing to even want to begin to start seeing. Economics is a way of seeing things in a new light; it's just another extremely useful tool to view the world from.

Here is the truth. Economics is really just a way of looking at the combined impacts of various other things. Economics itself, doesn't really "drive" anything. Weather, the environment, political freedoms, tax policies, etc all those are the real drivers. (though perhaps I should set aside tax policies for the moment because that is readily manipulated).

Economics only reflects the combination of all those other factors. So, yes, economic definitions and analysis can tell us part of what happened in the past. The problem is that too few economists understand how little they really know about all the factors that get put into their formulas. Not understanding, the equations get misused, misinterpreted and most particularly.. claims are made for prediction that are just not valid.

This happens sometimes in various field of science. Often times, for example there is a great deal of attention paid to how data is collected, ( to making sure samples are pure, measured very precisely,e tc, etc.) BUT, little attention is paid to the basic sampling designs... too many folks think that all you have to do is make sure a sample is random and then it gives you real information. In fact, unless you can quantify (at least have some basic understanding) of ALL the variables and design a study to take ALL those variables into account properly, the study might be a "wonderfully conducted study" that gives absolute garbage.

I wish more economists would study science,agriculture, even politics. Then it might have more real validity.

[BigBallinStalin]

People need to learn more about economics... At least micro....

Explain. I never claim to be an expert in economics, but economics is more art than science. Too many assumptions are often made that are just false. This is why so many experts can disagree so widely.

Economics is related to everything in life. It can be applied, but sometimes something can't be quantified. This in turn leads to certain inabilities.

Granted, just because something like GDP overlooks services that have nonmarket value (e.g. stay-at-home moms) lends to the fact that GDP is imperfect, but still useful.

I see, so you want us to pay attention to formulations based on known incorrect data instead of just looking at real, true, hard data? because that seems to be what you are arguing.

To see if you understand what I'm trying to show you (and to see what you know about economics), then please explain to me some of the problems with measuring GDP. If you can't, then feel free to ask.

F. A. Hayek once said, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men what little they know about what they imagine they can design."

Nice try, but I read plenty of fiction. I just don't confuse it with fact. Scientists.. those folks that economists too often like to dismiss as "not understanding the real situation" are trained to look beyond the imagined and our biases. Economists, sadly are most definitely not! In fact, as you describe, they too often celebrate those biases and perpetuate them with projections that support projections based upon their prior assumptions.

Who claims this? Which economists? (seems like another one group applied to all of them problem of yours).

"Too often" is going to need some evidence, but I think you're just being overly emotional, so "too often" will be taken as a hyperbole. Anyway, it depends on what the topic is. I'll leave the ball in your court.

Economists have shown that FDR's government spending didn't get the US out of the Great Depression, economists have proven that minimum wage does cause unemployment, economics can be used to explain human behavior like spontaneous order, the Coase theorem, and what's great about economics is that it's related and useful to every science out there.

And statistics "prove" that beds, hospitals are the most dangerous places to be...
No, the truth is that economics is just a tool and it is far more often misused than used. If you use it without understanding its limitations or specifically clarifying them, then it is worse than useless, it distorts completely.

More often, huh? How bout some evidence?

Agreed to the second underlined, which is why it's even more important for you to understand what economics actually is.

I won't get into FDR, except that I can dig up a few economists who firmly disagree. I will say that higher wages only result in fewer jobs in the immediate future. Mostly, it pushes already failing businesses down a bit sooner and encourages employers to let go employees they would likely let go anyway. (never mind what excuse they give -- much easier to say "i am firing you because of the minimum wage change", rather than "I am firing you because you keep showing up late and only work in a half-assed manner) After just a year or so the employment rates go right back where they were. THAT is what economics REALLY shows.

No, that's what you showed us--not economics.

Please, show me which economists support such ideas, and then we can talk about it.

It's all interconnected with economics.

Economics is a description of human activity and events. It is not a predictive force. It can offer some understanding, but like any other kind of statistics, is too often misused more than benefits. To even put forward that figures with less than 2% accuracy rates should dictate our behavior over and above other factors that actually have predictive validity is insane. Yet,t hat is exactly what economists too often ask us to do.

It can be used to make predictions because economics doesn't limit itself to its own field of study. It incorporates many other fields as well in order to make certain predictions. You're also talking about game theory, which I'd love to hear you explain to me, so I can see what you understand about it.



Let's test your understanding of economics:

Using the Solow Growth Model, which variable causes long-term growth:

Education, capital, investment rates, or technology/efficiency?

If you're really interested in learning about economics, I'll recommend a book for you, and if you ever have questions about it, you can just PM me, and I'll explain. Deal?

Cute. It doesn't take a PhD in engineering to know that a dam is only as good as its foundation ties. It doesn' take a PhD in hydrology to know that you need a bigger bridge to go over the Mississippi than to cross the neighborhood creek. I am not going to get into arguing the specifics of particular economic theories because . And, the evidence I have is the failure of virtually all predictions.

Economics isn't just limited to predictions, but it also concerns itself with explanations...

But anyway, show me the evidence that proves that economics has failed with virtually all of its predictions. (By virtually, let's say that's 95% of the total).

Or, to put it another way. I would trust an engineer over an average citizen to say whether a particular hillslope can support a house. At the same time, if we go by and see that the wall that engineer is building sags.... Then it doesn't take a PhD to know this particular engineer screwed up. So, too, with economics. Its a LOT easier to see the failings. The problem is, economists too often try to cover up their mistakes with a bunch of "explanations" that are really just ideology.

Sure, like neo-Keynesians or Marxist economists, but you're just applying one group to ALL of them. So, stop that. It's as ignorant as racism.

[BigBallinStalin]

.......................................


PLAYER, if what you say is true, then economics can no way explain human behavior, how the Soviet Union economically collapsed, how the Great Depression happened, or how government spending to remove people from recession isn't as beneficial to the economy as once thought, or how even inflation and its consequences. Economics can also be used to show how to improve the lives of billions of sub-Saharan Africans.

No, now you are trying to claim I said something I did not. You can look at all of those events and see causes in economics. The problem is that there is not enough understanding of all that to provide predictive value.

The problem with economics from the masses' perspectives is that they've been fed tons of erroneous information over the years (or haven't even been educated on the topic at all). So, it's also an economists job to lift people from these biased preconceptions.

Yes, much of it is theoretically because the subject matter a lot of times can't be quantified; however, when explaining concepts in microeconomics it isn't theoretical, but easily observable. For macroeconomics, there's plenty of room for guessing, and over time others are proven right and others wrong.

In a sense, economics can be seen as a philosophy, and over the decades certain ideas win over other ideas by putting them into practice and/or having them observed (for example, socialist or Marxists economists' ideas and theories losing out to Austrian school, realist, Keynesian, yada yada). Now Keynesian is on it's way out...

Economics is everywhere. You're just refusing to even want to begin to start seeing. Economics is a way of seeing things in a new light; it's just another extremely useful tool to view the world from.

Here is the truth. Economics is really just a way of looking at the combined impacts of various other things. Economics itself, doesn't really "drive" anything. Weather, the environment, political freedoms, tax policies, etc all those are the real drivers. (though perhaps I should set aside tax policies for the moment because that is readily manipulated).

Economics only reflects the combination of all those other factors. So, yes, economic definitions and analysis can tell us part of what happened in the past. The problem is that too few economists understand how little they really know about all the factors that get put into their formulas. Not understanding, the equations get misused, misinterpreted and most particularly.. claims are made for prediction that are just not valid.

This happens sometimes in various field of science. Often times, for example there is a great deal of attention paid to how data is collected, ( to making sure samples are pure, measured very precisely,e tc, etc.) BUT, little attention is paid to the basic sampling designs... too many folks think that all you have to do is make sure a sample is random and then it gives you real information. In fact, unless you can quantify (at least have some basic understanding) of ALL the variables and design a study to take ALL those variables into account properly, the study might be a "wonderfully conducted study" that gives absolute garbage.

I wish more economists would study science,agriculture, even politics. Then it might have more real validity.

If economics never "drove" anything, then explain to me how the economic thought that went into developing the ideas for market economies and command economies doesn't drive anything. (OH, or was such a thought innately developed within us?) [WARNING: Trick Question]

Some of what you've been saying is true, but you should really point to specific examples to back your claims. (hopefully, you'll do this in response to my earlier post, so you won't have to repost that answer here).

[BigBallinStalin]

I wish more economists would study science,agriculture, even politics. Then it might have more real validity.

lol, what is "political economy"?

Many economists specialize in particular fields (like agriculture and yada yada), so your wish has already come true.

[PLAYER57832]

If economics never "drove" anything, then explain to me how the economic thought that went into developing the ideas for market economies and command economies doesn't drive anything. (OH, or was such a thought innately developed within us?) [WARNING: Trick Question]

Trick indeed. Those are descriptions for thinking that already existed.. long before there ever was a term "economics".

What drives any economic system, anything is humanity and various environmental factors. Its not the economy that drives anything. Economics is just a description, most effective after the fact.

[BigBallinStalin]

If economics never "drove" anything, then explain to me how the economic thought that went into developing the ideas for market economies and command economies doesn't drive anything. (OH, or was such a thought innately developed within us?) [WARNING: Trick Question]

Trick indeed. Those are descriptions for thinking that already existed.. long before there ever was a term "economics".

The "thinking" didn't exist previously, but the phenomena was already occurring. No one was aware of it, and if they were, they couldn't explain it in terms of those times--until some genius came along and showed them what was happening. There's a difference, you see?

What drives any economic system, anything is humanity and various environmental factors. Its not the economy that drives anything. Economics is just a description, most effective after the fact.

Even psychology can be merely labeled as description going by your logic (which means you're ignoring the lasting effects of such work and thought).

Economics shows people a way of driving an economic system. No one but economists study and have shown what's fundamentally required for long-term economic growth (which is key to alleviating global poverty). For example, if Chairman Mao took a few Western economics classes, he'd have realized that the Great Leap Forward would have been a 20-year Fall Backwards.

You keep labeling it as this static after-the-fact subject. It isn't... Look at Adam Smith's work the Wealth of Naitons. It influenced the American Constitution. Think about that for a moment.

It is the foundation of modern economics, and upon that book's release, it shook the world's understanding of economics and people.

First published in 1776, it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies.

That's a fact that wasn't readily accepted way back in the day (and still comes up as a problem with people who don't even understand economics at all).


And he was way ahead of the curve in trying to explain human motivation:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

For you to disagree with my original statement, you'd have to admit (erroneously) that the Wealth of Nations (or economics) had no influence on driving economies (e.g. in the form of presenting sound arguments for a push towards free market principles.

[PLAYER57832]

For you to disagree with my original statement, you'd have to admit (erroneously) that the Wealth of Nations (or economics) had no influence on driving economies (e.g. in the form of presenting sound arguments for a push towards free market principles.

Now you are changing your argument and mine.

Wealth absolutely did influence things. Economic predictions, though, are not accurate enough yet to be used to form policy, though people keep trying. As computers get better, and more data is readily available to use, such predictions will no doubt improve. Right now, go beyond 2 years and even the best economic prediction is only 10% accurate. That is a piss poor argument for saying econnomics is more important than other factors.

As for the free market pushing all... there are many factors. Truth is that if people can choose wealth and stability over freedom, they generally will. That is what history shows. Also, to have a truly free economic system requires a good education system, etc. Many of the current policies are pushing down those systems in our country. That "works" for the power brokers because they can afford to educate their own kids in private schools and the like.

In truth, this battle over taxes is really just a continuation of class struggles we see periodically throughout humanity. Strangly, the Tea Party folks have managed to convince people they favor the individual, when they really and truly are further empowering the elite.

[BigBallinStalin]

For you to disagree with my original statement, you'd have to admit (erroneously) that the Wealth of Nations (or economics) had no influence on driving economies (e.g. in the form of presenting sound arguments for a push towards free market principles.

Now you are changing your argument and mine.

So, can economics be used to drive an economy?

[PLAYER57832]

What drives any economic system, anything is humanity and various environmental factors. Its not the economy that drives anything. Economics is just a description, most effective after the fact.

Even psychology can be merely labeled as description going by your logic (which means you're ignoring the lasting effects of such work and thought).

No. Psychology follows scientific principles of proof and evidence. It is not as precise as other sciences, but it is a science. Economics is different.

Economics shows people a way of driving an economic system. No one but economists study and have shown what's fundamentally required for long-term economic growth (which is key to alleviating global poverty). For example, if Chairman Mao took a few Western economics classes, he'd have realized that the Great Leap Forward would have been a 20-year Fall Backwards.

Not true and your basic assumption is wrong. Reliance upon constant growth is, in fact a big part of the problem, not a solution. And studying ecology, biology and other sciences give us that information. Reliance upon economics as if it could somehow allow people to overcome the very real limitations of this earth.. that is beyond arrogance.

[You keep labeling it as this static after-the-fact subject. It isn't... Look at Adam Smith's work the Wealth of Naitons. It influenced the American Constitution. Think about that for a moment.

It is the foundation of modern economics, and upon that book's release, it shook the world's understanding of economics and people.

Never said economics has not had influence. I said it is of only limited predictive value and that its value for explaining things is often over-stated by a huge measure. You keep insisting that economics is above everything else. It isn't. It is merely a tool, but unfortunately, that tool is overused to such an extent it has wound up causing real an serious harm.

An example is the peradigm that growth is king. Sustainability, not growth should be our target.

First published in 1776, it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies.

That's a fact that wasn't readily accepted way back in the day (and still comes up as a problem with people who don't even understand economics at all).

Again, you are missing the mark there. The free market is more productive than what? Than the other systems of the day. No one today disputes that. The Fuedal system was the best system once upon a time, too. Now, I believe that any viable system must contain free market principles (that is my belief, not a fact). However, the problem comes when so many people look only or so heavily upon free market forces to solve every problem on earth, literally.

There are many, many things that just don't operate well in a true free market. One of the main ones is health care. Some aspects of a free market can be employed, but the bottom line is that when you get in a car accident, you don't get to go shop for the best hospital. You go to the nearest or one that can take you. There is no free market there, not really and truly.

When it comes to natural resources, the free market often works in the exact opposite of sense. The idea that anything can possibly be equivalent" to the destruction of entire ecosystems only makes sense if you utterly fail to understand what ecosystems are.

And he was way ahead of the curve in trying to explain human motivation:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Again, you have already defined the situation so narrowly that you have excluded most of what I am saying. That is the real problem with economics and most (not all) economists. You pretend that because you cannot readily quantify something it can be ignored. This is the fatal mistake that impacts us all. This is what allows a businessman to pretend it makes sense to pollute my water, my children's water and our entire town's water.

[For you to disagree with my original statement, you'd have to admit (erroneously) that the Wealth of Nations (or economics) had no influence on driving economies (e.g. in the form of presenting sound arguments for a push towards free market principles.

No. I have to say that you are looking only at superficialities and ignoring the real impact of what you are declaring. I don't ahve that luxury. Neither does anyone really, but it must be nice to pretend you do.

[BigBallinStalin]

What drives any economic system, anything is humanity and various environmental factors. Its not the economy that drives anything. Economics is just a description, most effective after the fact.

Even psychology can be merely labeled as description going by your logic (which means you're ignoring the lasting effects of such work and thought).

No. Psychology follows scientific principles of proof and evidence. It is not as precise as other sciences, but it is a science. Economics is different.

I agree, but economics is not just description, and my next response will show why:

Economics shows people a way of driving an economic system. No one but economists study and have shown what's fundamentally required for long-term economic growth (which is key to alleviating global poverty). For example, if Chairman Mao took a few Western economics classes, he'd have realized that the Great Leap Forward would have been a 20-year Fall Backwards.

Not true and your basic assumption is wrong. Reliance upon constant growth is, in fact a big part of the problem, not a solution. And studying ecology, biology and other sciences give us that information. Reliance upon economics as if it could somehow allow people to overcome the very real limitations of this earth.. that is beyond arrogance.

Ok, I'll admit that there are other players, but economists are extremely important too.

Regarding Mao, don't you see how he could have realized his errors had he--or his economic advisors--had studied some more non-Communist/Socialist/Marxist economics? They would've realized the ultimate failure of their morally good plans.

What I mean by "economic thinking drives the economy" is that economics-based information provided 19th and 20th century socialists with the plans to drive their economy towards some goal. Sure, other sciences contributed, but the economics provides politicians the game plan that influences public policy.

[You keep labeling it as this static after-the-fact subject. It isn't... Look at Adam Smith's work the Wealth of Naitons. It influenced the American Constitution. Think about that for a moment.

It is the foundation of modern economics, and upon that book's release, it shook the world's understanding of economics and people.

Never said economics has not had influence. I said it is of only limited predictive value and that its value for explaining things is often over-stated by a huge measure. You keep insisting that economics is above everything else. It isn't. It is merely a tool, but unfortunately, that tool is overused to such an extent it has wound up causing real an serious harm.

An example is the peradigm that growth is king. Sustainability, not growth should be our target.

I'm not sure how I've stated that economics is above everything. I'm just arguing that it's important, integral, and highly influential.

Sustainability is an interesting issue, and at the moment I'm reading a book called The Ecology of Sustainability, so I'll get back to ya on that one at some later time.

First published in 1776, it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies.

That's a fact that wasn't readily accepted way back in the day (and still comes up as a problem with people who don't even understand economics at all).

Again, you are missing the mark there. The free market is more productive than what? Than the other systems of the day. No one today disputes that. The Fuedal system was the best system once upon a time, too. Now, I believe that any viable system must contain free market principles (that is my belief, not a fact). However, the problem comes when so many people look only or so heavily upon free market forces to solve every problem on earth, literally.

It's more productive than the current ways of doing things in 1776. That's my point.

Free market principles were heavily disputed in that day! It was until the Soviet Union collapsed that economists actually understood how money works and how value is ascertained. As socialist and communist countries based on command economics kept performing poorly and failed to increase people's average incomes and standards of living, more people started moving towards market-based economies (and that mainly occurs in the 1970s and later...). It took awhile, didn't it?

That's what I was getting at.

There are many, many things that just don't operate well in a true free market. One of the main ones is health care. Some aspects of a free market can be employed, but the bottom line is that when you get in a car accident, you don't get to go shop for the best hospital. You go to the nearest or one that can take you. There is no free market there, not really and truly.

When it comes to natural resources, the free market often works in the exact opposite of sense. The idea that anything can possibly be equivalent" to the destruction of entire ecosystems only makes sense if you utterly fail to understand what ecosystems are.

Sure, there's the common goods problem like water and roads and the environment. But all of this is being addressed and argued--just like the status quo of thought was argued against 200 years ago. Who knows where it may lead, but I find the debates fascinating, and in my opinion, there's a better alternative to be had than current one.

Also, we have to be aware that we don't live within a free market world, and that the US government's economic policies are heavily influenced by economists like Keynesians (and neo-Keynesians), whose policies and insights have been widely and soundly disputed, but it's just a matter of time depending on the government's decisions.

And he was way ahead of the curve in trying to explain human motivation:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Again, you have already defined the situation so narrowly that you have excluded most of what I am saying. That is the real problem with economics and most (not all) economists. You pretend that because you cannot readily quantify something it can be ignored. This is the fatal mistake that impacts us all. This is what allows a businessman to pretend it makes sense to pollute my water, my children's water and our entire town's water.

I believe I mentioned such shortcomings in previous posts.

[For you to disagree with my original statement, you'd have to admit (erroneously) that the Wealth of Nations (or economics) had no influence on driving economies (e.g. in the form of presenting sound arguments for a push towards free market principles.

No. I have to say that you are looking only at superficialities and ignoring the real impact of what you are declaring. I don't ahve that luxury. Neither does anyone really, but it must be nice to pretend you do.

For the sake of clarity, which superficialities am I only looking at, and what real impacts am I ignoring?

[PLAYER57832]

Regarding Mao, don't you see how he could have realized his errors had he--or his economic advisors--had studied some more non-Communist/Socialist/Marxist economics? They would've realized the ultimate failure of their morally good plans.

More like if he had studied human behavior more.
His failures went beyond economics. In fact, given the situation at the time in China, it can be argued that Mao was an economic success. I am not sure I agree fully, but my old Asian studies professor did make that assertion.

What I mean by "economic thinking drives the economy" is that economics-based information provided 19th and 20th century socialists with the plans to drive their economy towards some goal. Sure, other sciences contributed, but the economics provides politicians the game plan that influences public policy.

I am saying that is a big part of why we have the problems we do now.

[You keep labeling it as this static after-the-fact subject. It isn't... Look at Adam Smith's work the Wealth of Naitons. It influenced the American Constitution. Think about that for a moment.

It is the foundation of modern economics, and upon that book's release, it shook the world's understanding of economics and people.

Never said economics has not had influence. I said it is of only limited predictive value and that its value for explaining things is often over-stated by a huge measure. You keep insisting that economics is above everything else. It isn't. It is merely a tool, but unfortunately, that tool is overused to such an extent it has wound up causing real an serious harm.

An example is the peradigm that growth is king. Sustainability, not growth should be our target.

I'm not sure how I've stated that economics is above everything. I'm just arguing that it's important, integral, and highly influential.

Sustainability is an interesting issue, and at the moment I'm reading a book called The Ecology of Sustainability, so I'll get back to ya on that one at some later time.

First published in 1776, it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies.

That's a fact that wasn't readily accepted way back in the day (and still comes up as a problem with people who don't even understand economics at all).

Again, you are missing the mark there. The free market is more productive than what? Than the other systems of the day. No one today disputes that. The Fuedal system was the best system once upon a time, too. Now, I believe that any viable system must contain free market principles (that is my belief, not a fact). However, the problem comes when so many people look only or so heavily upon free market forces to solve every problem on earth, literally.

It's more productive than the current ways of doing things in 1776. That's my point.

It's an irrelevant point. Furthermore, you are, again looking at it as history, not how decisions were made at the time.

Free market principles were heavily disputed in that day! It was until the Soviet Union collapsed that economists actually understood how money works and how value is ascertained.

Come again? "No one understood how value is ascertained until the Soviet Union collapsed???" Funny.. I can remember a good deal of discussion back then and not much has changed in the economic view. Some details have changed, but some of the biggest changes are recognizing how important a social welfare system is to our country. Ironically, this lesson is getting suppressed now because it is not politically expedient.

As socialist and communist countries based on command economics kept performing poorly and failed to increase people's average incomes and standards of living, more people started moving towards market-based economies (and that mainly occurs in the 1970s and later...). It took awhile, didn't it?
That's what I was getting at.

You are mixing socialism with command economy. The problem with the Soviet block was the "command" part. Ironically, many might say we currently have a command market economy. That is, the big companies are so heavily vested that our system is dictated by what they want. They don't respond to the market, they dictate what the market does by plan. (not saying I absolutely agree, but it is an interesting thought.

In fact, much of Europe and even we have large socialistic influences. And, though you hear the pundits blame all the collapses and such on socialism, that is not really what has happened. Its rather like claims that the reason poor countries are poor is that they have inefficient agriculture, but ignoring the fact that that agriculture was sustaining up until the US came in with our artificially low prices, World Bank demands for "progress", etc.

There are many, many things that just don't operate well in a true free market. One of the main ones is health care. Some aspects of a free market can be employed, but the bottom line is that when you get in a car accident, you don't get to go shop for the best hospital. You go to the nearest or one that can take you. There is no free market there, not really and truly.

When it comes to natural resources, the free market often works in the exact opposite of sense. The idea that anything can possibly be equivalent" to the destruction of entire ecosystems only makes sense if you utterly fail to understand what ecosystems are.

Sure, there's the common goods problem like water and roads and the environment. But all of this is being addressed and argued--just like the status quo of thought was argued against 200 years ago.

not sure what you mean by the status quo 200 years ago or how this relates to my comment. There was more common property back then, if that is what you meant. However, the tragedy of the commons is only part of the issue.

Who knows where it may lead, but I find the debates fascinating, and in my opinion, there's a better alternative to be had than current one.

Also, we have to be aware that we don't live within a free market world, and that the US government's economic policies are heavily influenced by economists like Keynesians (and neo-Keynesians), whose policies and insights have been widely and soundly disputed, but it's just a matter of time depending on the government's decisions.

Again, not really sure what you are getting at. I think you are assuming I agree with some basic issues you have probably never even questioned. I am saying the fundamental assumptions you make are wrong.

And he was way ahead of the curve in trying to explain human motivation:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Again, you have already defined the situation so narrowly that you have excluded most of what I am saying. That is the real problem with economics and most (not all) economists. You pretend that because you cannot readily quantify something it can be ignored. This is the fatal mistake that impacts us all. This is what allows a businessman to pretend it makes sense to pollute my water, my children's water and our entire town's water.

I believe I mentioned such shortcomings in previous posts.

You said that, but them went on to argue as if they just did not exist.

[For you to disagree with my original statement, you'd have to admit (erroneously) that the Wealth of Nations (or economics) had no influence on driving economies (e.g. in the form of presenting sound arguments for a push towards free market principles.

No. I have to say that you are looking only at superficialities and ignoring the real impact of what you are declaring. I don't ahve that luxury. Neither does anyone really, but it must be nice to pretend you do.

For the sake of clarity, which superficialities am I only looking at, and what real impacts am I ignoring?

I think I went into this in another post or thread. Basically, economists start with an assumption that humans can assign things particular values based on their need and that this matters. Another paradigm is to say that everything we have around us matters, that we have to justify any change before we make that change. Some types of change are justified already by cultural history, etc. We can fish, if we stay within certain limits, for example. Each area has its own unique form of agriculture, when it is allowed. Some tweaks work. I am not saying we need to be luddites. But, we have made so many changes and implemented so many new things without any real and true regard to consequence that its no wonder we are facing issues like climate change, etc.

YET, and this is the worst part, for all that, countries, companies and people still think its OK to not only ignore, but spend time disputing whether those changes are even happening and if they matter.

This is pretty much the pattern of every lost culture in the past. First you see disregard for the environment, sustainable systems. Small changes at first, changes that allow the wealthy to get more wealthy. Before long, giving wealth to the top means ignoring infrastructure and wants of the "masses". At that point, the system is already collapsing, but the leaders typically don't recognize it. They often crack down on the populace, take other measuers to try to hold their power. We are in that phase right now. It has not yet descended into battle, but I am worried that we are not far off from outright war. Some might say we actually are fighting the war already, just that the nature of what war is has changed. (I don't agree with that idea).