Why are everyday citizens with 0 education or understandings of complex Economic models or outcomes allowed to decide whether it crashes not only it's own market, but every market in the world as well? Is democracy a sham? Should the sole (atleast economic) decisions be left to those who are experts in it without any say so or insight from the citizens?
that's corporate capitalism for you
Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are stupid.
>>1327857
>power to the people!!
>someone votes in something they dislike
>omg why should we let these people vote????
Really makes you think.
>>1327868
But hey, there's no way to fuck around with it, right? Like, say hypothetically, having enough money and influence to sway votes to certain sides.
What would happen if economists were left to make all decisions?
>>1327873
shoulda gone out to vote, lad
>>1327877
Probably the same controversy.
>>1327857
Fuck off Plato.
The purpose of democracy is not necessarily to create a state that acts intelligently, but to pacify the people. When people's lives get fucked over by things like war or an economic downturn, if they live under a non-democratic system, they are likely to revolt because they feel they have no power over the cause of their suffering. If they live under a democratic system however, they are much more willing to accept their misfortune without trying to overthrow the government since the administration that made the poor decisions leading to it was elected by the people.
By far the best system of government (best for the state, not necessarily best for the individual) is that of "shadow government", where people have nominal democracy and get to elect their leaders - pacifying the populace - but all of the important decisions are made behind the scenes by various unelected bureaucrats.
technically it's within people's right to fuck with the market. like if people one day decided to say screw facebook and start spending more time with people outside then the internet market would tank.
another one. let's say pork suddenly becomes haram for "reasons". people switch to cattle. but people haven't been eating cattle for years. you have to import cattle from a country you fucked your trade relations with. suddenly pig farmers are out of jobs trying to raise beef in pig farms. food becomes suddenly superexpensive.
i'm not an economist but yeah, this is how I see it.
>>1327857
Welcome to democracy, dumbass.
>>1327857
Because they live in the country, and they should have a say in how it's run, because that also influences them.
By far the best system of government (best for the state, not necessarily best for the individual) is that of enlightened absolute monarchy, where people have no democracy and don't get to elect their leaders - pacifying the populace - and all of the important decisions are made in plain sight by a benevolent autocrat
>>1328056
I came here to post another quote of Yen-li.
Something like "the beauty of democracy is that there's no one to blame but yourself for your mistakes".
And it's true.
>>1328076
*Wen-li
>>1327857
>dat pic holy shit
eh...what?
>>1327857
Someone is salty.
RULE BRITANNIA
>>1327877
And how would these economists decide between themselves? Maybe we can nominate one economist who is like, the best of the best and he can make all the descisions for us?
>>1328046
Its worth it to ask what does it actually mean, making the economically best descision...
I am sure economists are not foreign to the idea of an investment and of course every investment has risk.
Of course the staus quo also holds certain risks.
The economys should serve the population, not the other way around and some things capitalism cannot put a value on(yet) like one's preferred habits and social miliue. If brits dont want immigrants than that is completely fair. They have decided thier desire to focus on a more conservatie british culture trumps a few points on the market graphs.
Its like a question of spending one's time with the family or working a bit more to peraps get a raise..
>>1328083
Maybe even some kind of philosopher-king?
>>1328041
>By far the best system of government (best for the state, not necessarily best for the individual) is that of "shadow government", where people have nominal democracy and get to elect their leaders - pacifying the populace - but all of the important decisions are made behind the scenes by various unelected bureaucrats.
Sounds horrible, being in the shadow means they don't have to hold any responsibility to the people and only need to answer to their underground council circlejerk. And they will likely focus on trying to consolidate their own power which can lead to in-fighting and stagnation.
>>1327873
>Like, say hypothetically, having enough money and influence to sway votes to certain sides.
There are people who try to do it whole the time.
See George Soros.
>>1328086
>making the economically best descision
that is a fucking complex question that no one who really knows his shit has an answer to.
Music shouldn't be an industry for me. Capitalism and art shouldn't mix. Justin Bieber shouldn't be making money making garbage songs. Copyright is a Spook. But hey gotta feed that US Cultural Imperialism some ammo.
It's almost as if people understand that freedom is more important than how much money the top 1% makes.
>>1327857
Why is she wearing two pairs of panties?
>>1328138
its hot
>>1327857
>Is democracy a sham?
It's far from perfect.
You think letting 51% of the people tell the other 49% of the populace how it's going to be is going to work every time?
>>1328127
CORPORATISM NOT CAPITALISM
>>1328167
That makes the 49% sounded like a sour losers.
>>1328172
Equally stupid to believe having a 1-2% advantage in a vote makes you right and vindicates your opinions.
>>1328175
Should it be a tie?
>>1328167
It doesn't have to work every time, that's why we have representatives. And in this case the said representatives decided to put things up for a popular vote.
Britain pls go. Just go.
>>1328175
That's democracy fucknuts. What you seem to want is how it's done in a commune.
I live in a country where politicians like to compromise with the opposition in everything, and few things ever get done, and usually only half arsed.
>>1328076
>>1328078
>>1328056
On one /a/ thread a couple months back I learned that you could have an entire debate, political or otherwise, using only LOGTH caps.
>>1327857
> Why are everyday citizens with 0 education or understandings of complex Economic models or outcomes allowed to decide whether it crashes not only it's own market, but every market in the world as well?
They aren't. They told that they do. It's a different thing.
>>1327857
The educated ruling class would steer legislation to benefit their own interests until the ordinary uneducated plebeians rise up and seek more power.
>>1328007
/thread
>>1327857
The point of democracy is that in the long, long, looong run, the average citizen will have more than 0 economic knowledge simply because it's in his very own interest to be able to understan economics and vote well. It's already happening, as you can see, in some Western-European democracies most young people who grew up in an individualistic, democratic society from birth are not THAT completely retarded.
>>1328138
i now imagine that she had the g-string on to begin with, and literally only pulled the thong halfway up for the shot.
>>1327857
Just because an economic decision looks good in aggregate doesn't mean it's good for society as a whole. The whole economy could double in size but if 50% of the population doesn't see any benefit then it might be less desirable than a 10% improvement equally spread. Massive wealth disparity is also a destabilizing influence.
>>1328124
He was being facetious, you retard.
The thing is: if we let the average economist run the economy we would end up with several poor free trade experiments.
>>1328175
If you don't like it move to North Korea fuckhead, that's how democracy works. Sorry this vote went against you maybe the next one won't, who knows, maybe you should stop supporting such shitty political positions that lose elections/referendums all the time, ever think of that?
>workers decided to get out of a neoliberal anti democratic institution
right-wingers on suicide watch
>>1329645
>Implying the left hasn't been co-opted by neo liberalism
They're all on suicide watch mate.
>>1327877
Positive vs. normative economics. The latter is always involved in politics.
>>1329658
>Implying the left hasn't been co-opted by neo liberalism
Yeah. This is what happens when we get too attached to labels instead of the meaning behind them
Democracy is a farce and only retards who make up the idiotic masses like it.
>>1327857
Because there are educated and rich people who vote for shitty things that harms the nation or people. Also said people aren't immune to buzzwords and emotional rhetoric.
>>1329645
is this the beginning of the end of globalist scum?
>>1329669
couldnt put it better
also OP, you need to stop virtue signalling and actually learn about economics, and not be scared so easily to shill for the status quo
Because democracy isn't "51% says we should eat the other 49%, gg fags get in the oven". It's everyone getting together, discussing their problems, and how to fix them in a manner that benefits everyone.
This doesn't work on the scale of nations because despite what the edgelords over at revleft will tell you people have different and competing interests and in many cases physically cannot communicate in an efficient manner (language, ignorance, distance, etc).
>>1328157
>Marx
>Economist
>>1327857
Why is she wearing panties over a bikini?
>>1327865
of course not, they can agree with me and still be stupid because they agree with me but for the wrong reason.
democracy is flawed since it's a man-made invention: but it works pretty well in places with mature and educated minds (e.g.: the modern rapacious vikings from the nordic realm)
while in the rest of the world it works randomly, since people will vote not with their minds but with their hearts making the final results volatile acts resulting from the campaigns exclusively.
so yeah, democracy works but not where the simple minded are the majority since they're the most pervious to propaganda and therefore won't be able to use a proper judgment to decide on important things.
>>1328167
that's how referendums work, if one sides has a single vote more than the other - it's over.
unlike elections for example, where unless you have an absolute majority, you haven't won anything.
e.g.: portugal - where a coalition of two right wing parties "won" the elections by having the majority of votes but the 2nd party (who was running alone) joined forces with two other left parties and managed to get to run the whole country.
the same is being tried at spain but with no palpable results because the politics there are too stubborn to put the population's needs above their pathetic rivalries
>tl;dr: there's no diplomacy in a referendum - only a clearly choice between yes or no. the one having more votes win in the end.
but keep in mind that referendums don't always have a legal value and can be considered a non-binding instruments sometimes; it just shows the people's opinion on a subject but the leader in charge can decide to tell them to fuck off
>>1327857
This implies models are accurate to a degree unheard of.
