Its the humanities thread yet we keep ignoring arguably one of the most important ones. Economics.
Anways, how do we successfully develop nations lads? What policies success cause Korea tier growth, while other's cause India tier?
>>846823
stick to austrian and you will be fine
>>846838
>Austrian Economics
>anything but rambling nonsense
>>846823
Economics is a Popperian science nigger.
Anyway, nation building is political economy.
Start with an agricultural base and build infrastructure around it.
>>846838
>Austrian School
>Literally recommending witchcraft
wew lad
>>846838
>Austrian memeonomics
Anon, you must be 18 or older to post on 4chan.
But on a more serious note, Neoclassical synthesis is the way to go. Keynsian macro and neoclassical micro work very, very well together, and offer the best explanation of our economic reality currently available. That being said, as long as it isn't heterodox trash like Austrian or Marxian shit, its usually worth reading.
Thoughts on this smug fucker?
>>846823
Depending on how much government you believe is necessary for a healthy and successful public.
Economics and politics do blend which is why and hopefully we keep the /pol/s low.
I am a fan of Thomas Sowell, Walter E Williams, Milton Friedman and F A Hayek.
Neo Classical economics is probably the best route to take. As to address your point about India, that is more of a cultural issue rather than an economic issue. Even though the Cast System has been banned, it's stigmas and edicts still remain in the minds of its people.
When it comes to Austrian Economics, I cannot believe that private corporations will remain fair and impartial when established as Police/Military/National Defense and Providing Equal Justice under the law than having the deepest pocket cooking the books.
At the very least have the society at Minarchism levels.
>>846869
>Austrian School
>Literally recommending witchcraft
It's not witchcraft but more takes the science of economics into the highest degrees of social science levels. I will agree that it is ridiculous but should always be looked into for it does provide good points of economic value.
>>847227
>Breaks window
Look guys we are making the economy grow.
>Paul Krugman is a shit
>>847232
How do we build roads in Minarchism? I mean contemporary roads.
>>847245
Civil engineering arm of the military and police.
Read the Wealth of Nations
>>847245
Well you could always hire someone out of the free market.
>>847297
Who?
A corporation formed by a community?
How is that different from a government?
>>847305
Just because it's a big corporation doesn't mean it has to be helped by the government. But yes, it would be very unlikely but someone would have to take up that mantle in Minarchist society. I'm sure some guy who knows all the shit about road building would get his city or whatever into doing it as a job. Could be very lucrative if the person is charismatic enough. He would basically have the entire community in his pocket, same as running a mining community.
>>847309
How is a group of people making a corporation different than a government? Is that a serious question? That's just arguing semantics.
Government should control everything. CEOs work for separate branches of the government and get paid salaries, profits of all business goes towards infrastructure, military, investment, etc
>>847305
>It costs money. Taxation must go up then.
That's fine, it's just a matter of scale.
The category is still technically "Military expenditures"
>>847330
All memes aside, this is disgusting.
>>847339
What's wrong with him?
>>847357
>I'm a libertarian
btw because of the large increase of income to the government, no taxes, at least on income
>>847358
Hold it senpai, you said Jingoism and Bonapartism as if they were bad things, care to explain?
>>847346
Perhaps I was too brusk, if we are presupposing a functioning ideologically popular minarchism then lets also assume enthusiastic citizen laborers who agree to contribute to the local chapters of the police and military and could conceivably consist of an extensive corp of volunteer or conscripted citizens under the organization of the existing military authority to create the infrastructure.
This is if we want to minimize taxation like you say.
>>847361
>If you're not socialist, you're libertarian.
Nice meme.
>btw because of the large increase of income to the government, no taxes, at least on income
Along with claustrophobia-inducing industrialization, and corruption.
>>847368
centralization*
>>847368
>implying I'm a socialist
I don't believe the final goal is communism
>He isn't a Behavioral-Keynesian Economist
>>847375
Inb4 you want fascism
>>847362
They establish more government. Giving them more power, and then the State can't no longer hold the idea of civilian control of the military.
>>847382
This desu
![81y4y-dK-tL[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LqqhONj.jpg "81y4y-dK-tL[1].jpg")
Required Reading
>>847382
I think it belongs on both boards.
>>847375
Then wtf are you
>>846823
Read Bad Samaritans. Mercentalism causes a nation to grow, while free trade causes it to shrink.
>>847330
That's what China does
>>847393
>while free trade causes it to shrink.
Read an economic study. You know, based on math and empiricism rather than flawed human reasoning and abstractions.
>>847395
>Says the people who ignore logic if it "sounds right"
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/structure-of-empires.html?m=1
>>847386
Pic related
>>847245
>How do we build roads in Minarchism?
The same way we built roads before the government monopolized infrastructure. They are constructed and maintained by private companies, who profit from them off of the pay-for-use model, the same model that most major cities in Western countries already use for parking.
The reason infrastructure became government-controlled is because, historically, pay-for-use was impractical for roads. Having to stop and pay a toll slows down your commute. In the modern age we don't have this issue. Each car driving down a road can have as large of a fraction of a cent as is necessary to turn a profit charged to it, using the same pre-existing technology we use to charge people who are speeding or run red lights.
The end result would be more efficient road construction and maintenance, and decreased cost for people who either don't drive at all or only, say, drive to and from work. It would only be major corporations like trucking companies, delivery businesses and taxi outfits, who have hundreds of vehicles on the road more often that not, that end up paying more.
>>847394
>That's what China does
No it isn't, they're pretty much full capitalism at this point
>>847410
All the major companies are state controlled you dip. Just because they have a hairdresser or two who self-owns doesn't make it like that.
>>847415
How do you define "state controlled" though
>>847418
If the state can appoint a chairperson to it.
>>847227
He's incredibly smart. He has contributed new and useful observations to the field, which is what it means to be an influential economist, not being right 100% of the time. Contrary to many people's criticisms of him, he's widely accepted in economic circles.
What rubs people the wrong way is he likes to write tons of op-eds. He's like a left Friedman on steroids. If you think Friedman was annoying for pushing his political agenda, Krugman's sheer amount of op-eds, well let's just say a lot of people hate him.
>>847393
Whether free trade causes a particular region's economy to grow or not depends on how efficient and competitive that region's economy is in the first place. We're not talking about the United States in particular or China in particular or any other specific, localized area, we're talking about the entire global economy.
An Earth without barriers to trade conducts more trade than an Earth without barriers to trade.
You could still defend free trade from a nationalist perspective even if your nation's economy is inefficient, though. It allows the losers in your country to lose and the winners to win, and forces your country's citizens to adapt to changing demand.
Let's say country A has an economy where 50% of economic activity is generated by widgets and the other 50% by doo-dads. The global economy produces doo-dads more efficiently than country A, and the total demand for doo-dads is withering as widgets become more popular. If country A's markets open up, it allows for the country A widget industry to prosper and for all of the patriotic A's to get into widgets instead of labouring in the doo-dad mines for something nobody really wanted in the first place.
>>847404
>The same way we built roads before the government monopolized infrastructure. They are constructed and maintained by private companies, who profit from them off of the pay-for-use model, the same model that most major cities in Western countries already use for parking.
>robber barons are private companies not landed and titled aristocrats
>roman roads were private
>>847400
>the entire article ignores all the data supporting free trade
Opinion discarded. But nice dubs.
>>847404
Why do you think a company wouldn't monopolize roads?
>>847410
No, it's some sort of weird state-corporatism. Although similar to capitalism, the government can pretty much seize private property for no reason and replace you. Your individual property rights are not well protected. It's incredibly pro-business though. The problem is you really should not come at China using the false dichotomy of capitalist-free-markets versus communist-centrally-controlled-markets. It's really not an either or.
>>847444
>An Earth without barriers to trade conducts more trade than an Earth without barriers to trade.
*conducts more trade than an Earth with barriers to trade
Protectionism is all about preventing losers from losing by preventing winners from winning. It's the international equivalent of redistribution.
>>847452
No.
>>847455
>build road encircling city
>shoot anyone that tries to enter or leave by trespassing on my private roads without paying the fee
>>847438
On a personal level I think he's annoying and has a very punchable face
How long until we get a full mad max style government?
>>847462
I would do that if I could, honestly.
Would you give planned economy a second chance?
I dont think its fair to judge it based on two warn thorn shitholes that were both basically bankrupt failing to do it while the rest of the world is actively trying to prevent them from it.
I really do feel that having a council of specialists judge current events and trends and make a plan for the nest three years that all production should follow will be a more safe, and in the long run more successful strategy than just riding the waves and hoping the crash isnt too hard when it inevitably happens.
>>847493
Well most of the world is already living in a mixed economy.
You could argue when government starts large investments (for example in road infrastructure) it is planning economy (part of it) for years ahead, then companies working that field can start giving ideas/calculations what would be the best way to achieve this. Maybe this kind of keynesian planning is the future, because it is what is happening currently.
>>847493
The problem with planned economies is the same as dysfunctional economies. Either lack of capital required to achieve goals, or perverse incentives. Capital being so critical is why bankers control the world. Perverse incentives are what cause backwards economic behavior.
What really needs to happen is social engineering of markets, even though libtards hate it. Set goals you want to achieve, and design broad policy and capital allocation to get things going in that direction and let the market take care of the details. Make the rules of the game to keep honest men honest, and punish cheaters and people who harm the economy for personal gain. Make what is good for society profitable, and men good or bad will do good. You can let the Smithian invisible hand work out the details.
>>847474
>Because of all of the same market forces preventing a monopoly in any other industry.
There's a term for a monopoly that come up even without any regulation or intervention. It is called natural monopoly, there's shit loads of them. Roads would become one of those too.
>>847516
A lot of money today revolves around things like Google, Facebook, Apple.
Thats money that came out of nothing, overnight. You cant really plan for it.
Thats my main problem with planned economy, it fails to capitalize on innovation, and today we get a lot of very economically successful innovations.
>>847524
Yes which is why we won't have a planned economy. Planned economy would make sense if the world were complete, but it isn't.
>>847520
Okay, lets make a thought experiment based on that.
Cancer is a problem, half your population smokes, including poor people who cant afford necessities but still buy tobacco. This is a long term disaster for the country, because of healthcare plans, because workers take smoke breaks, because cancer patients cant work nor can be fired immediately, things like that.
You are the economy-tzar figure for your government, and you have the power to create a strategy and push things in a direction where smoking would be diminished.
How do you do this? Obvious suggestions go like
>tax tobacco more
>advertise bad effects of tobacco
>promote alternatives
>ban smoking from public places
Well all of these were tried, and failed, in real life.
>>847527
Tobacco usage is all time low here, and we've tried them all. So they must have worked.
My problem with just that isn't economical, but that I don't feel like government should have the power to dictate what you can do/like.
>>847527
>failed
What are you talking about? Tobacco consumption has been in steady decline for a few decades.
More importantly, rates of new young tobacco smokers have plummeted. Because it is an addictive substance, adults who are addicted may keep smoking until they die off, so looking at the rate of adult smoking makes progress look even slower. If someone was 18 in 1960, they'd be 54 today. If they stay addicted, you won't see a drop in tobacco usage from new policies from them until they die.
>>846838
I'm wating for better times when the Austrian economics will be the standard. Of course now matter how many times it's proven wrong, the Keynesian system will always be more "politician-friendly."
>>847527
It's super effective.
>>847531
>>847537
>it works
I am looking at Balkan numbers, since I am from the Balkans. Here over half of people smoke, and the number has been relatively static, slightly rising.
Almost all young women smoke.
>its not bad
But smoking is bad for everyone long term.
People live shorter lives, they are more miserable in their final years.
People work less, they are less productive, so value is being lost.
The government has to pay to treat these people who poisoned themselves, and business cant fire them when they get cancer, since that would get them sued. Money is being lost.
A person smoking will increase cancer in all those around him, despite them not wanting it, and they cant always prevent that. This forces the public smoking ban, but even in your home, when your dad smokes while watching TV, you have to exit the room and not watch in order to keep away from smoke.
You are basically allowing a person to make the country poorer and make other people either have to expend effort to get away, or to endanger their health.
Its something that should be regulated, a prescription medicine against stress, take these smokes and do them for a month, then take this patch to get off it, thats how you get through exams. Not something over the counter, that people can use and abuse.
And I feel the only way to handle it, at least in my environment and culture, would be a very tyrannical and unpopular solution, to either tax them sot hat they become a luxury good that people just cant afford (20 cigarettes used to cost as much as 1 loaf of bread, now they cost as much as 6) or to just put some flat ban on it.
Anyway, that was an example I am passionate about, but what I wanted is to suggest that >>847520 "design broad policy and capital allocation to get things going in that direction and let the market take care of the details" isnt always effective strategy.
There is a reason the stick exists, its there to handle situation where the carrot just doesnt cut it.
>>847541
>[citation needed]
>>847545
Quoted the wrong part
Meant to quote
>Anyway, that was an example I am passionate about, but what I wanted is to suggest that >>847520 (You) "design broad policy and capital allocation to get things going in that direction and let the market take care of the details" isnt always effective strategy.
There is a reason the stick exists, its there to handle situation where the carrot just doesnt cut it.
>>847545
>Make the rules of the game to keep honest men honest, and punish cheaters and people who harm the economy for personal gain.
See, technically speaking, smokers do that. They harm the economy to get high on tobacco.
>>847556
I deleted for reasons stated in >>847551
>See, technically speaking, smokers do that. They harm the economy to get high on tobacco.
That's the point. You claim I don't advocate sticks when I never said that and I did say there should be sticks. You strawmanned and misrepresented what I said. You can see in >>847540 taxes are used to cause the prices to skyrocket, yet then you argue against yourself and say that's a tyrannical and unpopular stick.
>>847563
It is tyrannical and unpopular, thats not a gentle push, rather shoving things in some direction.
I still support such means, and I am happy they work in the west. They dont work on the Balkans, where people will go hungry, but will smoke.
Its popular culture and the image of being a cool badass to have coffee and a cigarette for breakfast instead of food. People will jokingly say you are a pussy for eating in the morning instead of smoking.
Again, I support such direct meddling in the economy when its worth it, such as this case, but suggest what should be done when even that doesnt work. Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Romania are examples for it.
>>846838
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xphl-CyvU
>>847568
Where did I say gentle? I said broad policy.
> They dont work on the Balkans, where people will go hungry, but will smoke.
It can't be rushed because addicted people are often addicted for life. You need to target young people. Included in broad policies in the west are tobacco shaming and free help for people to quit.
You're also being silly. You're saying on one hand it's the only way to make it work, on the other it won't work. You're playing both sides and making a non-argument, and attempting to deny actual results with speculation and conjecture.
>>847577
>You're saying on one hand it's the only way to make it work, on the other it won't work.
>You're playing both sides and making a non-argument, and attempting to deny actual results with speculation and conjecture.
I am doing no such thing?
I am happy that it worked in the west, and I mention the fact that is hasnt worked on the Balkans.
I am saying I support the application of such methods, but other, further methods need to be considered for the cases where it doesnt work.
You accused me of straw manning when I didnt understand your post earlier, and I think now you are in the same situation.
I play on one side only, and I am saying that this side should go further with its ideas so it can deal with the more extreme cases of the problem.
If you would reduce your concerns to simple, short questions I would answer them with simple, short statements, and we can understand each other properly. I just think you made some assumption of me or my stance, and you are using that assumption as context for my words, giving them additional meaning I didnt intend.
>>847584
>And I feel the only way to handle it, at least in my environment and culture, would be a very tyrannical and unpopular solution, to either tax them sot hat they become a luxury good that people just cant afford (20 cigarettes used to cost as much as 1 loaf of bread, now they cost as much as 6) or to just put some flat ban on it.
>I still support such means, and I am happy they work in the west. They dont work on the Balkans, where people will go hungry, but will smoke.
Its popular culture and the image of being a cool badass to have coffee and a cigarette for breakfast instead of food. People will jokingly say you are a pussy for eating in the morning instead of smoking.
Yes you are. You are straight up contradicting yourself. You say the only what to make it work is to heavily tax it, which is what has worked in the west. Then you misrepresent what is done in the west, and claim it doesn't and won't work. Tobacco shaming and high taxes were both used in the west. And then you claim it wouldn't work for you, when you just said it would be the only thing that would work.
Basically, you claim you tried the western policies, but the only way to fix it is a non-western tax. When you are told taxes are a western thing, you said well you're special and a western tax won't work because of popular image, which again is something the west had to deal with.
Basically you keep coming up with excuses why you're different from the west and west policies won't work. You flip flop on the exact same issue, taxes, when you learn that it is a western policy.
>>847227
Very important academic work in trade theory. Disrespecting krugman because you've seen a few of his opeds here and there is a good way of outing yourself as knowing fuck all about economics.
>>847593
I've never had anyone so confused about something I wrote.
Please go back and re-read my posts and make another response.
I've never said that the only way to make it work is heavy taxing, this is a suggestion I made, along another, and I ended my post asking you to name others.
I never said taxing is a non-western thing, or a west specific thing. This is your emotional baggage clouding your perception.
Please clean your mind, stop stereotyping, and re-read my posts. Read them as they are written, not as if a caricature or a russian jew commie or whatever it is you are imagining is saying them.
>>847400
Chang is trash, oh look East Asia had some growth with a particular model in a particular period. We must recommend this for every situation now.
>>847236
When he said Alien invasion could fix the economy, I have never seen so many people missing the point. They literally thought he was in favor of alien invasion...
>>847619
It's like how austrians get flustered over animal spirits and pyramids.
>>847622
>OR
So one or the other, or other alternatives not mentioned, but implied.
How does that mean "You say the only what to make it work is to heavily tax it"?
How does OR as a logical operator imply only one of the mentioned suggestions?
>Then you straight up backpedal
I mentioned the standard ways of doing it, and mentioned an environment where the standard method didnt work.
Also I said a heavy, tyrannical tax, which is more than what your examples provide. Make tobacco a luxury good that people just cant afford, which isnt what the case is now.
You should stop insulting me based on my region of birth, and the stereotypes you have of the place, and learn to argue, my friend. Best wishes.
>>847245
>person you originally responded to
>had to switch to phone because of shitty fisher price internet
In a Minarchist society (best book written by Robert Nozick titled "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" which lays the ground rules unless you also count Frederic Bastiat)
Government is not needed to supervise or construct the roads. The people whom occupy a city/private-industry/paying customer is all that is needed for such actions. Having government supervise increases the costs of the road and also slows efficiency of said construction with also potential slow progress towards creating a better road (private industry created thirsty concrete which helps absorb large amounts of water preventing road flooding as one example)
If the company provides a poor quality of road than legal suit can be made in civil court. The arrangement of the deal can be negotiated directly between involved members without need for government.
Competition will ensure quality standards or very least customer satisfaction.
The only time government needs to be involved if legal sue issue is possible.
Competition also ensures monopolies will not arise because 1-3 savvy middle class entrepreneurs can easily cut into a regional monopolies profits with ease.
That (although different scenarios and better said vernacular used) sets the frame of Minarchism in a nutshell.
>>847632
>Competition also ensures monopolies will not arise
Doesn't remove the possibility of oligarchies. Also there is nothing to ensure monopolies will not happen, they happen naturally.
>>847637
Why would companies just not merge? Merger is the absolute formalization of collusion between two competing entities so they don't compete anymore. As long as they can keep sufficient barriers to keep start ups out, like decades of infrastructure development, there's no reason an oligopoly wouldn't merge. That's why you see all these proposed mergers in the news have to get the OK by the government. It's not a given that companies will compete when they can collude.
>>847619
His article about the Alien Invasion made me laugh to hard to take it seriously. I originally read it for his ideas but the more I read it the more I couldn't help but laugh. The likely hood of a factory reset on the economy (US, Europe, ect) is very low. Like his imagination on the subject though. Still think he's not the best to reference in an economic debate.
Didn't he help jump start neo-liberalism with his book "conscience of a liberal?"
>>847593
>>847640
>Yes you are. You are straight up contradicting yourself. You say the only what to make it work is to heavily tax it, which is what has worked in the west.
I am not saying the only way to make it work is to tax it, because I explicitly used the OR logical operator, suggesting that this one of two mentioned, and more implied, ways of making it work.
I mention two alternatives, imply others exist, and say that a version of one has been tried, and worked in the west, while failing on the Balkans.
Heavy taxing was tried in the west and on the Balkans, it worked in the west and failed on the Balkans. The harsher, more tyrannical and more direct, unpopular tax, which would make tobacco a luxury good, has not been tried, and I suggest it would work. The implication here being it would be a bad political move since people wont like it (unpopular and tyrannical, directly meddling) and as an argument against the gentle guiding of the market rather than steering it.
Relax, calm down. This isnt a fight. We are trying to do the same thing here, to reach a conclusion. Cooperate with me rather than insulting me. Else you can go back to discussing economy on /pol/.
>>847637
what's more, land is much more finite than normal means of production. There is only one supplier of land: the existing land that we have to work with. If a company handles the land it purchases well, and purchases good land, it has a steady foundation that literally can't be challenged. Not unless another company built a road right next to the fuckin thing and charged less or somehow laid pavement down better. And that's assuming that the first company didn't purchase the land around their roads, or that the land around their roads is somehow up for sale.
What's to stop a company from making these smart purchases and pricing out competitors within a region? Or what's to stop firms from avoiding competition with eachother? If firm A were to handle highways, firm B handled residential, and firm C handled the scenic routes? There are innumerable ways for firms to avoid competition with each other. And this is arguably easier and costs less than the R&D or entrepreneurial skill needed to innovate.
Game theory says that they'll end up backstabbing each other, but that's hardly done anything to stop our current monopolies in areas like communication. And what's to stop these companies from just doing a really cheapo, mediocre job once the market gets harder and harder to enter because of the finite nature of land?
>>847648
Yes but the point of alien invasion was obviously looking back to world war 2, which destroyed most of infrastructure in Europe which eventually led to a period of unimaginable growth.
Personally I think we are prisoners of our own calculations. When we read numbers of how economy only grew by 0.1% last quarter, real effects are much less than the panic it causes. We need to get over thinking in such short terms.
>>847646
Yes which scares me. Banks are already too big for their own good and for the good of society. Telecommunications are being centered among few players, because money goes to money. Even our food products are majorly controlled by the few players.
>>847400
You realize in that book, the strongest of criticisms is that Chang cherry picked his information to the extreme. It's a decent read but if and generally speaking that's the basis of a persons economic platform, I feel bad for them.
>>847404
t. Louis-Phillipe
Reminder that the reason Napoleon III. was so popular is that he brought roads and railroads to the entirety of France which was previously impossible since capitalists didn't want to build unprofitable infrastructure. Thinking that a minarchist system will automagically solve infrastructure is ridiculous. There are many people who live in remote/rural locations that would absolutely fucked under your system since nobody would want to build roads that wouldn't turn in a profit.
>inb4 they should just adapt we don't need farmers anyway
Unbrideled freemarketeers pls go and stay go.
>>847661
>Personally I think we are prisoners of our own calculations. When we read numbers of how economy only grew by 0.1% last quarter, real effects are much less than the panic it causes. We need to get over thinking in such short terms.
Solid and fair point. Problem is, how do we change this or shift the focus? Short term quarterly numbers effect multiple markets and can leave quakes from shipping/transportation to the stock market. Do we change from quarterly reports to yearly or semi annually, or do we scrap it and come up with a new track all together?
>>847695
Kill the speculator class.
Speculative investment is fine.
Meta speculating on other speculators trading does not do a better job of distributing capital and leads to greater fluctuations and crashes, and is mostly preying on smaller investors who invest poorly. You will notice people buy and sell mostly on buying and selling trends and hope to turn a profit on price fluctuations from speculators, and speculate about what other speculators will pay. Not the actual success of the thing being invested in. The people better at trading like fluctuations, because more fluctuations means more chances to profit at someone else's expense, and the experienced traders usually have the upper hand. All they're doing it taking money from people who buy in late. Because these speculators like to invest in companies that fluctuate, focus of corporations for shareholder profit is based on short term rather than long term growth, so you get CEOs trying to maximize quarterly profits at the expense of long term success. Because that's the problem. Investors aren't investing in a company. They're investing in the fluctuation of value cause by other speculators, even if the commodity is stocks. This drives companies who need investment to behave in a way that spikes short term profits to justify a big fluctuation. And then the investors dump their stocks on other investors, who bought into something that sacrificed long term viability for that investment capital. Because the value of the investment isn't about the company itself, just the value as a speculative commodity.
>>847684
So it's better to waste money for unprofitable business endeavors if it's for public approval?
>Protip: Free-markets are not always about turning a profit, by your argument your approaching "fixed-pie" fallacy zone. Remember free markets are about mutual exchange for the perceived benefits of both parties, whether it's monetary or the product itself. It requires incentive, risk/reward factor, and mutual exchanges of goods and services. Waste on effectively useless products provide no value (see college degree in basket weaving at U of O, or any feminist/gender studies degree) wasted expenditures do not help spur an economy forward. See the gobs of money Zimbabwe, Greece, and America have been pumping into it's markets and getting almost nothing in return.
>>847695
It requires completely overhaul of our state of mind and how we view economy. So not going to happen overnight, only in long run. Might make us live a bit longer as well for not stressing on those numbers.
>>847712
It means a rent-seeker can come up with a viable payment system by virtue of being a rent-seeker and not having to come up with a convoluted pricing system to distribute costs between various parties, prevent free-riders, and it limits ownership from being used strategically to disadvantage other firms with anticonstructive competition.
>>847668
Oh, I see where you got lost.
>The only way to do X is a very tyrannical and unpopular solution, one like A or B.
>So we need an X type solution, as I claimed only X
>A and B are X type solutions, but others may exist.
>Either A or B, or other X type solutions, should be taken.
And again, even if I take your path, I still dont contradict myself, since what I suggest is a more extreme version of A would work, because the mode mild version of A, while it worked in the west, didnt work on the Balkans.
You can have these be A1 and A2 if you like. I suggest A2, the more tyrannical and unpopular solution, while you mentioned that A1 worked in the west. I then bring up that A1 was tried, and didnt work on the Balkans. This further cements my argument that A2, or another solution of its tier (the X type solutions) is needed.
I'll stop responding to you, since its clear that you dont want us to come to a conclusion, and you simply wish to validate yourself by insulting others. I've already said what I wanted to say, multiple times by now. Have a nice day.
>>847710
So eliminate high risk markets? While I personally agree with this (not the elimination of high risk markets in general but the speculative markets), isn't that apart of the risk for investing in it? Financial Fiduciaries are required and obligated (by law) to turn a profit for their share holders. The methods in the speculation market can be considered unethical because it somewhat preys on the ignorant or not so sharp patrons who play in such a market. Isn't that apart of the risk of a (considered extremely loosely since America and any market in general isn't really a Free-Market) free-market society? Is it the potential unethical practice the source of being against it's unhinged volatility the reasoning? If so than is it more about ethics than economics?
Economically speaking the speculative market has helped the economy out (like you stated for people who know how to swim the channel) a bit but is it's impact severe enough to out right ban it?
(Just playing devils advocate for a tic)
>>847745
>Economically speaking the speculative market has helped the economy out
Yes and which is why financial markets are needed now and in the future. However... some of the finance instruments sold there are just plain toxic and destructive. We would need to come up with rules what are allowed to be sold. There's too much betting against other bets betting against bets betting against bets... and so on, the money never reaches real markets.
>>847724
So government runs transportation (roads and constructing them as well as maintenance) because it is a required public service for access to remote communities as well as increase the availability of resources (timber, mines, oil, ect) the benefits of potential wasted endeavors (road to nowhere) are more or less out matched by the benefits of used endeavors (road to a salt or coal mine)
To what degree would government be needed in your opinion? Should government have total control, should it be a partnership of multiple working contractors with government, should it be government sees a need to make a mag-lev railway from LA to NYC and it bids out the funding to make said railway?
>>847770
Fair enough, I agree with you.
>>847745
The problem is speculator markets are less about say, investing in pork bellies and reaping the rewards during a good season, or eating the losses on a bad season. It's about guessing how to come out ahead when trading with other speculators who are trading mostly based on speculator behavior.
Like I said speculative investment is fine, when the speculation is about speculating the success of the business you're investing in. It becomes backwards when the commodity is not the business and it's success, but it's value as an object to trade between speculators who are speculating about how other speculators will buy it.
A more obvious example is art speculation bubbles. A speculator will buy art, hope to fip it onto another speculator. That speculator will try to flip it, and so on. None of these speculators cares about the inherent value of the art, only that's it's a speculative commodity that other people will speculate on. Eventually the bubble pops, because it's just a painting and only worth so much. The problem is the speculators were only buying it because of the volatility in price of other speculators, who in turn were looking at the behavior of speculators, rather than the inherent value.
How does one read up on economics without becoming a sociopath? Is it possible to be economically minded whilst still holding down some principles of basic decency?
>>847795
Yes, but it's difficult.
First you read Adam Smith, and understand his basic concept that people acting in their own self interest can actually benefit others. Then base your economic ideas based on optimizing that ideal.
>>847777
I speculate those quad 7s are very impressive.
>serious note
And because of such unfounded values, this is why I only go as risk as High Yields Mutual Funds. Human behavior in the speculative market is to extreme in the volatility sector for me.
/his/ Economics Reading List
>Basic levels of Economics
Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations
Calvin Blackwell: Principles of Microeconomics
Gregory N Mankiw: Principles of Macroeconomics
This will get you in the door of baseline Orthodox Theory of accepted thought.
>Marxism Theory
Karl Marx: Das Kapital
Pendakis Andrew: Contemporary Marxist Theory
Sebastian Erckel :Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theories of Class
Christian Scheinpflug: A Critical Evaluation of Marxist IR Theories
These are for a solid understanding of Marxism and they also reference other Marxist thinkers as well.
>Classical Economics
David Recardo: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Henry George: Progress and Poverty
Alfred Marshall: Principles of Economics
These will give you grand incite into how Economics was viewed in the Classical Era. This is before Keynesian and NeoClassical as well as leading into Austrian/AnarchoCapitalism
>Austrian Theory
Carl Menger: Principles of Economics
Eugen Böhm von Bawerk: The Positive Theory of Capital
Ludwig von Mises: Human Action
Frederic Bastiat:The Law (Not officially an Austrian Theorist but his writting hugely influenced many Austrian and NeoClassical Economists)
Joseph Schumpeter: The Theory of Economic Development
Fritz Machlup: Economic Semantics
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia
These will give you the bread and butter of Austrian and even Anarcho Capitalism. Austrian Theory blends highly with Minarchism.
>NeoClassical/Chicago School
F A Hayek: Prices and Production
Milton Friedmon: Capitalism and Freedom
Thomas Sowell: Basic Economics
Walter E Williams: Doing the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks
Thorstein Veblen: Preconceptions of Economic Science
>>847808
These will give you grand incite into how Economics was viewed in the Classical Era. This is before Keynesian and NeoClassical as well as leading into Austrian/AnarchoCapitalism
>Austrian Theory
Carl Menger: Principles of Economics
Eugen Böhm von Bawerk: The Positive Theory of Capital
Ludwig von Mises: Human Action
Frederic Bastiat:The Law (Not officially an Austrian Theorist but his writting hugely influenced many Austrian and NeoClassical Economists)
Joseph Schumpeter: The Theory of Economic Development
Fritz Machlup: Economic Semantics
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia
These will give you the bread and butter of Austrian and even Anarcho Capitalism. Austrian Theory blends highly with Minarchism.
>NeoClassical/Chicago School
F A Hayek: Prices and Production
Milton Friedmon: Capitalism and Freedom
Thomas Sowell: Basic Economics
Walter E Williams: Doing the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks
Thorstein Veblen: Preconceptions of Economic Science
There are a lot more that I am glossing over but these are the big voices of NeoClassicalism. Feel free to add more too it if anyone likes but in my eyes these are the bread and butter theorists.
>Keynesian/New Keynesian
John Maynard Keynes: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
Michal Kalecki: Developing Economies
Nicholas Kaldor: 50 Years a Keynesian and Other Essays
Paul Davidson: Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory
Joan Robinson: The Accumulation of Capital
Piero Sraffa: Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities
Paul Krugman: The Spatial Economy
These are the general big heads of Keynesian Economics/Post Keynesian Economics.
>New Classical Economics
Robert Emerson Lucas Jr: Models of Business Cycle
Edward Christian Prescott & Finn Erling Kydland: Rules Rather than Discretion
>Developmental Econ
Acemoglu & Robinson: Why Nations Fail
>Public Choice
Tullock & Buchanan: Calculus of Consent
>>847808
>>847813
An Introduction to Game Theory by Martin Osbourne. Brilliant book
>International Economics
Obsfeldt and Rogoff Foundations of International Economics. Plus anything by Obsfedlt.
>Finance
(HARD) Campell, Lo, and McInley. It's called the Bible in the field.
>Behavioral Econ
Animal Spirits- Akerloff and Shiller. Written for a general audience, but explores and applies behavioral oddities.
>>846823
Modern Economics are produce more wares than folks can buy. @step1: Because this firms are doing crash. Governments print and give money to banks. Banks give money to new firm owners. They buy the machines because they are work for free and because this firm owners give less money to folks. That firms produce more wares than folks can buy. goto @step1
>>847808
>austrian
First of all Schumpeter is Austrian by nationality, but definitely not Austrian School. Second of all Hayek is an Austrian even if Rothbardians and Misers disown him. Third of of all:
>austrian
Also
>neoclassical
>veblen
Yes I know he coined the term, but that's like putting Das Kapital under classical economics.
Have you even read half of these, or is this just some sort of Austrian pseudo-intellectual reading list? Yes, I can tell it's Austrian biased due to the fact that no actual economist actually gives a shit about Austrians, yet the list is as long as Keynesian. This is a common trap Austrians always try to do. They put Keynes up on a pedestal then pretend to be his mainstream rival and pretend to be just as significant.
Pic related.
>the austrian insider
>>847888
It's just a list that was chucked up by a few posters in the only other econ thread I have seen on /his/. I also agree that Austrian is a shit and cannot understand why it has come back in full swing.
I wanna study economics in uni. How math intensive is it? Im taking Pre-Calc and Trig (doubled up) as a Senior now.
>>847232
>Milton Friedman
>>847965
>not liking Milton Friedman
Allende pls go.
>>847808
>Wealth of Nations
>Basic level
You already managed to fuck your list up on the first item. No one, specially those new to economics, read Wealth of Nations.
>>847907
If you want to get into something they're hiring MEcon and PhD (to industry) in, try Econometrics, for which you need maths. Would help to take a double major in analytical philosophy.
Lads ive been trying to get into Econmetrics class for three semesters now
real tired of being cucked by all the Chinese foreign kids in econ classes
>>847393
That's simply not born out by the empirical data.
>>847571
Read it again you retard, I never said I endorsed neoclassical macro.
>>847902
Because fiscal conservatives and libertarians are always in search of a new trash economic theory to justify being opposed to keynsian macroeconomic policy. Austrianism serves this end extremely well, since it allows you to literally reject all statistical evidence, plug your ears, and shriek "What I'm saying makes sense so I must be right" like a complete autist.
>>848005
Get out neoliberal shill
Daily reminder Keynes only true protégé in British politics who he had turned to his side self destructed in the 1930s
>>849455
>neoliberal
Marxist spotted. Please throw yourself off a helicopter.
>>848010
I am currently doing just that in fact. Only had one year of high school economics.
>>848021
Study more math.
>>847357
Yeah, let's let corporations control the economy ... so they can buy the government. That sounds fantastic: unaccountable groups controlling every aspect of our lives. You are a very intelligent person.
>>849696
No, it's not bait, I'm a marxist
>>847907
Depends what classes you take. It's also important to know WHY you are doing the maths.
>>850589
Then I'm sorry for your loss
>>846823
>not understanding that economics needs a total understanding of the intersubjective representation of the relation to the world.
>not getting a trencendental vision of the phenomena
>keeping it austrian
>mfw
>>852317
If the communists had waited another 50-60 years for the internet to show up, they would've been considerably more successful.
Using the internet you can create wealth out of nothing, needing only your knowledge and time.
>>852913
>Using the internet you can create wealth out of nothing, needing only your knowledge and time.
And a massive communications infrastructure that just fucking popped into existence ready for use, right?
>>849830
yer gonna die, dude
>>852317
>>>/leftypol/
spread your cancer elsewhere
>>852958
Is the joke here supposed to be that ex commie countries have better coverage and faster internet today?
>>853008
No, the joke is that the internet was invented by the state and central planning.
>>853032
I suppose so. If I recall correctly it was the military complex in USA, after heavy funding from the government.
>>847493
No because we can disprove Marxist theory. His labor theory of value was wrong. He didn't account for technological growth and he was wrong about the under class wanting to overthrow the rich. Can't stand communists the theory is quite literally wrong from a scientific standpoint claiming it works is like claiming the earth is flat it just isn't true.
>>847527
But it has worked. Millenials smoke less than any generation in 50 years
>>853055
>His labor theory of value was wrong. He didn't account for technological growth
Explain please
>>853055
>marx writes about the changes in market dynamics with the increasing important of capital due to mechanization of labor as the catalyst for revolution
>he doesn't account for technological growth
I bet you think LTV means a painter who works 40 hours a week should get paid the same as a doctor who works 40 hours a week.
What does /econ/ think of this rap song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
>>853055
>he was wrong about the under class wanting to overthrow the rich
kek
>>853064
In the communist manifesto Marx claims the workers will over throw the rich because to get more profitable the driving factor of production the rich will have to exploit the poor more and more paying them less and less for more labor because people will buy less things as the goods have already been produced so profits can't come from consumers because they won't buy things they already have. This is wrong because thanks to technological advancements we always have new things to produce progress is quite literally the bane of communism.
>>852960
Halfway in and loving every page of it desu.
>>853068
It's not just that labor has different value it also has do with the fact that progress makes it so workers don't have to exploited in the long run there lives can only get cushier and cushier. And even if this wasn't the case it would be irrelevant since Veblen was right and the poor have no intention of overthrowing the rich just emulating them
>>853092
It's true Veblen was right the poor want to emulate the rich that's what keeps society together despite all the pressures to collapse
>>853349
>paying them less and less for more labor because people will buy less things as the goods have already been produced so profits can't come from consumers because they won't buy things they already have
Direct quote please, not paraphrasing.
>>853382
Nigga do your own goddam research its in the first chapter of Das Kapital if I remember correctly I'd give you the fucking page number if I was at home. Hell its probe on the wikipedia page. The point is Marx thought value came from the labor put in a good which we now know is wrong because the value of something is a combination of a ton of factors coming together to form the price of the good. Which is a basic idea of modern economic thought. I would also recommend reading javascript:quote('847386'); Chapter on Marxism if you want a better explanation.
>>853349
I'm skimming the Communist Manifesto right now and it basically seems to say the opposite of what you claim.
>The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
>The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
>>853398
>In the communist manifesto Marx claims
You said the communist manifesto. It's pretty clear you're just talking out of your ass at this point and probably poorly paraphrasing some garbage you heard on /pol/
>>853398
whoops
consider that Javascript "The Worldly Philosopher"
>>853409
Not him, but probably different person.
>>853349
That's why we invented fiat-currencies with inflation, and planned obsolescence (which is biting us back...). We sure are inventive bunch of people, now if only we could see more than two quarters into future.
>>853409
Honest Mistake I meant Das Kapital and please don't accuse me of being pol because I'm not. I'm just an econ major who likes to let communist know they're wrong. Instead why don't you provide evidence to the contrary.
>>853416
I like this post and I like this poster
>>853416
Yep if we could predict the future then communism would have a fighting chance, but there are still other wholes in the theory right now. Not all labor is equal, Human want is infinite, meaning self interest will never leave no matter how advanced we get, and finally that the poor who no desire to overthrow the rich just to become them.
Does anyone have any predictions about when the proletariat will live in such "misery" that a full blown global proletariat revolution will happen? If at all?
>>853419
I did
>>853405
Direct quotes from the Communist Manifesto, which is what you originally claimed it came from, and seems to actually be the opposite
If you can't provide a direct quote and going to paraphrase or draw conclusions in such a dubious way, you're not doing a very good job at letting commies know how they're wrong. If you put it in an infographic, it wouldn't even make a good redpill. It really just sounds like you're strawmanning.
I won't straight out say you're wrong, but
>[citation needed]
>Instead why don't you provide evidence to the contrary.
Because I'm not a Marxist and I'm not making assertions about what Marx said. Burden of proof is on you.
>>853434
Once again never since Marxist theory that the rich will have to exploit the workers more and more to get profits was wrong since new things are always being invented so new markets are always opening for new profits.
>>846823
Innovation. Plain and simple. A focus on education and the liberty to innovate along with any rewards. That is the core of success for any nation. The ancient Chinese did it and were successful until pride and arrogance ruined it for them. The Romans mastered techniques and arts until they too went insane with power. The Islamic Calipahte used it for great purposes until the point where their rulers began to think they were divine (Akbar for example). The Europeans used innovation to subjugate entire civilizations and expand their influence. Now the U.S leads the world in innovation but is again reaching the point where arrogance, stupidity and pride would bring it down.
>>853434
>full blown global proletariat revolution
Considering past 100 years every social class has had it better than before (now it seems to be turning, this generation might be the first to actually have less than their parents).
Revolutions will happen, but not proletarian ones. I'd look at Venezuela or Brazil if you'd want to predict where next one might take.
>>853430
>Not all labor is equal
And? "Socially necessary abstract labor-time" implies that to be the case.
>Human want is infinite
And? What does that have to do with putting the control over the means of production in the hands of the few instead of the hands of the many?
>meaning self interest will never leave no matter how advanced we get
Do you have a 2nd grade understanding of Marxism, and think Marxism is egalitarianism?
> Although Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic
>>853439
I don't have my copy Das Kapital or the manifesto with me so instead may I recommend everyone who supports communist theory read Worldly philosophers' chapter on Marxism It explains the idea much better than I can. Once I'm at home next week I might make an info graph of the idea and make another econ thread about it.
>>853477
Pls no info graph
Pls no
Pls
Just make a long ass post with arguments and citations
>>853439
It's completely true if you take it as proportion of value generated, and the way profits are allocated.
>>853497
>>853477
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
Here you go
>>846823
Adopt free market capitalism.
Every country that relied on State-Run enterprises, in accordance with Socialism/Marxism, for growth have all failed.
The moment they started privatization of the state-run monopolies and allowed free movement of capital and private corporations with lowered regulations, they started growing at high rates.
>>847232
Neoclassic economics is shit. Has serveral fundamental flaws. The only good thing about the neoclassical framework is it's simplicity. It's simpel to teach and gets people started with economic thinking.
Flaws:
> Believing that a representative agent exists.
- Not everpyone is the same and makes the same decision. People are not rational 100% in every descision.
> Believing that capital and labour are perfect substitues, and growth is only driven by new technology
- What about more efficient labour? How is technology created? Solow says innovation magically appear out of nowhere. Romer says it is evolving at a constant rate based on savings = investments. Aghion-Howitt (Schumpeter) says that it happens in chunks based on savings = investments. Neoclassic explanation ends here. But what is the explanation of firms propensity to use their savings on investments?probably because firms want to sell something that nobody else have.
>>847684
>since capitalists didn't want to build unprofitable infrastructure.
Believe it or not, technology has progressed somewhat since 1852. The innovation that has occurred in the past century and a half has what infrastructure a profitable enterprise. We already have many governments worldwide contracting private companies to build new roads and maintain old ones for them. Private infrastructure is something that can work in the modern era, and already does, but on a limited scale. Minarchism is no longer defeated by the need for public infrastructure; infrastructure can be profitable in 2016.
>>855151
>has what infrastructure
*has made infrastructure
