I don't think Conservatives or Progressives correctly understand economics

I don't think Conservatives or Progressives truly understand economics. I don't think most educated economists truly have a proper understanding of economics.

The truth is that economics is very complicated. Multiple different paradigms, often conflicting, are needed to understand it, and it can be difficult to know how much of each paradigm factors into an end result. It's really difficult to achieve a correct balance of different perspectives, which would closely and accurately explain the economic process happening.

There's a little bit of truth in what Conservatives are saying and a little bit of truth to the ideology of Progressives, but both these views only scratch the surface, I believe, of what's actually happening.

Economics is notoriously not a hard science, meaning it's hard to objectively examine everything or draw links between variables. Plenty of unproven theory, opinion and guesswork.

If economists actually understood the economy so well, why couldn't they predict the Recession, or exactly what the unemployment rate will be? Why do so many important things going on in the economy mostly go unexamined by mainstream economists?

Why are there competing rival schools of thought among economists?

The understanding of economics is one of the most important things from a political perspective, and yet we fail to fully understand it. I don't think there's any other issue in politics quite like this one. All sorts of important political issues touch on or are dependent on economics.

People don't know where wealth actually comes from, or have a good framework for understanding the process. People don't understand the full extent of economic costs to doing something. Seems like a good idea, but there's all sorts of huge subtle or hidden costs.

 

Your post lacks insight or motivation. That economics ultimately embraces pluralism is a matter of the obvious. Different schools of thought aren't necessarily in conflict. See, for example, post Keynesianism and its adoption of Marxist crisis theory principles. Alternatively, try Pareto ("the grandfather of fascism") and the embedding of his ideas within neoclassical theory.

 

More submoronic than usual I'm afraid. Most economists know we have more wealth than in the Stone Age because of new inventions. Moreover, capitalism encourages inventions and wealth by rewarding the inventor far more than libcommieism. Do you understand this?

 

nobody said they understood it well enough to predict recessions or unemployment %???Just like nobody said scientists can predict the weather!! Do you understand?

 

One of the big mistakes people often make in economics is confusing macro effects with micro effects. Yes, technology is actually critical and fundamental to the economy, but the fact that is true does not logically mean good economic policy should be putting all the focus on new technology, as if that's where wealth is going to come from. Technology is much more of a longer-term benefit. You can't base the economy of a large country on just innovation. There is plenty of technology that already exists, and the pressing issues in the economy do not stem from lack of technological innovation.
If I hear one more time in a news article or magazine that "we need to focus on more technological innovation to grow the economy" I'm going to puke.

 

dear, our subject was not good economic policy but where wealth comes from. I said new inventions encouraged by capitalism. You said you had no idea where wealth comes from which seems to be what you always say. Why not ask questions so you can learn the basics?

 

Nice going.

 

Economics is a foreign language to the right winger and the authoritarian personality.

 

Anyone who follows UK politics will know that Labour creates the debt and the conservatives balance the books. Unfortunately, the debt from Blair & Brown coupled with the financial collapse has well and truly wrecked national debt.

Also, ask a socialist, "So, how much will your proposed policy cost or how are you going to finance it?" allways receives a blank expression.

To say conservatives don't understands economics gives you an insight to the mind of the person claiming it.

 

How's the debt gone under the stupidity of austerity?

There's always the Tory money tree to buy bigot!

 

Dreadful. Imagine what it would have been like without austerity.

I imagine everyone has suffered tight financial times. If you go severely overdrawn, did you spend your way out of it? Interested to know because I normally have to work harder for more money and cut back on expenditure.

You want to check out Blair's, it was a forest.

 

Significantly lower. Austerity during a downturn is cretinous. It reduces growth and therefore tax receipts. I suppose the Tories can cheer the closed libraries. Fewer books to burn further down the line!

You sum up the fallacy of austerity: treating the economy, composed of millions of economic agents, as the same as Auntie Mildred's purse.

Austerity has a very specific rationale. Reducing fiscal stimulus in time of boom, where the threat of overheating becomes problematic for macroeconomic stability. To use it as a general tool is ideology based, exchanging economic sense for an assault on public good provision.

Blair was a Thatcherite. The only significant thing he achieved, other than an illegal war, was suitable investment in the NHS.

But let's not forget the point. At a time that the Tories are nicking mobility cars from the terminally ill, did you register surprise when they found a billion spare to keep bigots sweet?

 

Ah, you're a staunch labour supporter so I'll let you know what I'm up against. To you, the Tories are always the Tories and every Tory is a Thatcherite. Also, you divide Labour up by the past leaders, so each leader ran a different version of Labour that you will diss as the current Labour party is the "Labour Party". That's the mind set of a socialist. So you now know that I know your tactic.

You've already dissed Blair. One down.

You mean PFI, as in 'Privitisation' !!! PFI was a conservative idea, to use private money to build new hospitals and such hospital trusts rent them to the tune of umpteen million a year. Do you mean that kind of investment?

I remember having to call down to Carlisle to see my dad in hospital, the new hospital built with PFI money. My dad complained about the food. I emailed the local MP about the hospital and a meeting with a hospital big wig was set up. The big wig explained PFI and that funds of several million a year was now going into rent!! Also, the food contract, signed by Labour, was for 25 years to a catering firm in Manchester. There's about 15 to17 years to run on that. The big wig said, "Labour have mortgaged our children's future". Very important that last bit so I will repeat it, "Labour have mortgaged our children's future"

 

That Blair adopted Thatcherism is a matter of fact. Crikey, Thatcher herself saw New Labour as her greatest success.

Nope, I referred to investment. It was the type of investment which reduced waiting lists. It was also the type of investment which reduced future costs (e.g. mental health care).

That Blair maintained privatisation is obvious. As I said, Thatcherism continued. In economic language: market fundamentalism or neoliberalism. Of course it's got much worse with the current regime. You must get terribly excited to know, for example, child services have been gutted and the call centres generate so much dosh for the likes of Virgin? Conservatism in full display.

 

If you wish to debate, please don't do selective quoting, that's a cop out and another tactic.

 

Debate? So far you've whinged that I see Blair as a Thatcherite and then confirmed that Blair was a Thatcherite. The noise you give around that doesn't interest me.

 

Thanks, but you're a waste of time to talk to.

 

No problem. I'm sure you have lots of other people to moan at over how you agree that Blair is Thatcherite. Its an industry no less!

 

Yes, economics is difficult to get a handle on because it involves people, its more sociology than a hard science. That's why "loose" theories such as those proposed by Adam Smith and Mises work better than theories requiring tight control such as those proposed by "progressives".

As a result, conservative policies work better than "progressive" policies.

 

Strange comment, given Adam Smith's focus on ethics and his ultimate support for egalitarianism.

 

The government having a loose hand in economics is much better than the government trying to control and direct the economy. Loose control means there will be some troubles, but direct control has always failed.

 

You seem to be responding to a different quote. I'm not referring to Smith's acceptance of a mixed economy. I'm referring to his support for egalitarianism. Crikey, the current Democrats would probably be too right wing for him.

 

I'm not debating Smiths views in general. Smiths "invisible hand" (which does not mean no hand) is better than concepts that assume the economy can be directly steered to meet narrow goals.

 

Smith made little comment about the invisible hand. Its been exaggerated by right wingers who, quite frankly, are ignorant of Smith's economics. His focus on egalitarianism, for example, makes him quite incapable with the ineffective stuff from Mises.

 

totally wrong of course Smith was a champion of Republican capitalism whereas current Democrats are openly socialist! Moreover, the entire purpose of Adam Smith was to advocate capitalism over govt schemes like mercantilism, fascism, socialism etc.