A problem within economics

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by wgabrie, Mar 12, 2022.

Tags:
  1. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A problem within economics, that prevents us from coming up with a good replacement system for capitalism, to realistically meet the demands of the current world and its economic problems, is the lack of real-world data for economists to study. Many economic theories rely on hypothetical arguments that haven't been observed in the real world but it's mostly just a guess at this point.

    A problem with collecting data in the real world is that it requires studying one change at a time with all else staying the same. But, everything is constantly changing all the time. So, it's an economic rollercoaster ride!

    Any suggestions?
     
  2. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think lack of data is the problem.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  3. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, something must be the problem because a large number of people want something new in economics.

    Socialism, communism, MMT? Nope!

    But, what's next? Does nobody know? I don't know.
     
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113

    People want utopia and magic. That doesn't mean they are realistic options.
     
    Bullseye likes this.
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,636
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A big inherent problem with a central command style economy is that people are inherently stupid. They would not be able to run that economy well. We can see so many politicians acting out of emotion rather than logic. People don't know how to view conflicting factors in the proper proportion. A market economy addresses that issue, because signals are quantified.

    There are several potential modified forms of capitalism that still have a free market but could address several of the issues and criticisms. Then there is "Chinese-style" capitalism where the government has a huge chunk of ownership but things are run much like a private company. But of course this has the downside of giving government a huge amount of control over people and society which they can abuse. Another idea is Land Value taxation (Henry George argument).

    Also immigration and trade policies are a big thing. Capitalism is obviously not going to operate well for the little people if wages are pushed down by an overabundant labor supply. You can't just ignore trade and immigration issues and then claim "capitalism doesn't work". That's not exactly fair.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2022
    GrayMan likes this.
  6. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even when they have data, they still get blindsided by inflation.
     
  7. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you should first ask yourself why you think the you part of the "us" have any duty to meet the demands of the me part of "us". Whatever system we have, people will adapt so that there are those who get greater advantage at the expense of those who approach life just a tad more irrationally. Has always been that way. Will always be that way as long as civilization has and will exist.
     
  8. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody knows, it hasn't been invented yet.

    They say necessity is the mother of invention...
     
  9. George Bailey

    George Bailey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    2,399
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Free market with some regulation and limited safety nets.
     
    FrankCapua likes this.
  10. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suggest you study Economics so you know what you're talking about.

    Capitalism is a Property Theory. It is not an Economic System. A Property Theory answers one and only one question, and that is, "Who should control Capital -- the means of production?"

    Since time immemorial, there have been five different Property Theories:

    1) Capitalism: Capital is controlled by individuals
    2) Socialism: Capital is controlled by government or by a quasi-governmental or non-governmental organization
    3) Communism: Capital is controlled by the people-at-large
    4) Mercantilism: Capital is controlled by the merchant class, and while entry into the merchant class is possible, there are many barriers
    5) Feudalism: Capital is controlled by a small class and entry into the class can only be granted by the highest ranking member of the class

    Communism has never existed at the State level, but it has existed at the local level, like the Amana Colonies in Iowa that produced the Amana Radar Range, you now, a microwave oven, and in some tribal systems, although the majority of tribes used feudalism.

    There are only 3 Economic Systems: Free Market, Command Market and Traditional Market (still used by about 2.5 Billion people living in tribal societies). There are also hybrids of those systems.

    An Economic System answers three basic questions:

    1) What goods or services shall we produce?
    2) How shall we produce them?
    3) For whom shall we produce them?

    The system is the answer to each question.

    For example, shall we produce tomatoes? In the Free Market, if there's a market for tomatoes then you produce them.

    In a Command Market, the Command Group might say, well, you know, tomatoes have a short shelf-life, you can't really do anything with them unless you use a lot of other resources to make tomato soup, tomato puree, tomato paste, tomato sauce or stewed tomatoes, and they don't yield a good profit margin on the global market, so we'll produce grains that do give us a lotta revenues instead of tomatoes.

    In a Traditional Economy, the shaman might eat a peyote button and sit in a cave for 3 days and an ancestor might come to him in a vision and say, hey, it's the Year of the Lard-Ass so produce tomatoes.

    You can produce tomatoes using organic, classical or neo-classical farming methods. If there's a market for organic tomatoes, then the Free Market says produce them, and if there's a market for tomatoes produced using classical farming methods then the Free Market says produce those, too.

    The Command Group in a Command Market might say we don't get high crop yields using organic farming methods, so we're not going to do that. End of story. That probably wouldn't be an issue in a Traditional Economy.

    For whom will you produce tomatoes? The Free Market says anybody who wants them can have them. The Command Group might say you can only produce tomatoes for the ketchup market. In a Traditional Economy, maybe only the warrior class gets tomatoes, or maybe only the village elders or maybe the warrior class and the village elders or maybe everybody.

    Capitalism has never been paired with a Command Market, but that is exactly what the Trotskyites-turned-Neo-Cons want to do.

    Aside from that, and all other Property Theories (except Communism) have been paired with all Economic Systems.

    The fatal flaw in your OP is failing to recognize that no Property Theory and no Economic System is impervious to economic shocks.

    What's really disconcerting is your failure to recognize the rapidity that Capitalism and the Free Market respond to economic shocks.

    The speed at which Capitalism paired with the Free Market responds to an economic shock and resolves it is unmatched by all other Theories and Systems.

    The Command Market, and Socialism whether paired with a Free Market, Command Market or hybrid, are mired in bureaucratic hand-wringing resulting in delays in response to an economic shock of months and even years, and when a decision is finally made, it is typically too little, too late, and even worse, along the way they screwed up everything else and increased the suffering.
     
    Hey Now and FrankCapua like this.
  11. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been given an insight into a possible future and it was made clear to me that Capitalism will not be the economic system in the future. I specifically asked what our economic system would be in the future, if not capitalism, and I was specifically not told what it would be. So, I have been on the hunt for any information and trends that might give a clue or hint at what's coming.

    As an unrelated note, those three economic questions were very interesting. How about this:
    1. We shall manufacture raw materials, and enjoy all of the services we've always enjoyed.

    2. Through advanced technology, the items will be made by creating materials that will be radioactive for a while so we'll need to cover them up until they aren't radioactive anymore for a future generation to enjoy.

    3. An IOU will be issued to both people and corporations giving them a share of the future materials, which they can keep or sell for a bit of cash. Since it's a long-term wait I would expect the people to sell them and big businesses to buy them in the hopes that they will still be around and can use the raw materials in the manufacture of goods.
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "...given an insight?"
     
  13. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Years ago, when I was a kid, young but not so young that I couldn't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, I had several encounters with aliens, not just one type but several different types.

    So, in one of those encounters, I went with them to their place. That was a long encounter but, at one point in it, a hole opened up in the universe and someone (did I mention that they were humans?) called out to me to go into it or I would die (at the hands of the aliens). And, that was another long story. But at one point in that. We went through a process to go over the timeline of events of the future. They put a headband over my head and showed me how to alter future events through a connection to a highly advanced intelligence and advanced ability to change things. --They worshiped it and connected me to it for me to speak for it.-- But, back to the point, among many things they wanted to work on was the economic system of the future. I said Capitalism, but they said no, and they decided to alter the future without me.

    So, yeah we're going to have a non-Capitalism economic system in the future.

    In recent years I have learned of the multiverse theories of parallel universes where anything that can happen will happen in its own universe. So, they may not have changed OUR version of the future, I don't know.

    So, the insight I have into a possible future was the result of a very weird day. Or rather a weird day on top of a weird day. It's complicated.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2022
  14. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,999
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was planning on contributing but I think this thread went in a totally unexpected direction.
     
  15. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's why I didn't go into the details behind this, but Lil Mike asked.

    So, yeah, I'm looking for ideas on economics... For more than one reason.
     
  16. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK I totally get it.
     
    Hey Now likes this.
  17. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My suggestion is to try to realize that economics isn't a science. It is a form of analysis of human nature and humans are notoriously unpredictable. What has been observed in the real world is that all wealthy nations have become wealthy through capitalism and not a single one has become wealthy through socialism. It is what it is.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is definitely false. First Hong Kong and now -- and even more impressively -- China became wealthy through geoism.
    Why the false dichotomy fallacy? I've noticed both capitalists and socialists try to pretend that the other is the only option.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, there is tons of real-world data. The problem is that modern mainstream neoclassical economics has no valid way to classify the data because its definitions are invalid. They have basically accepted accounting definitions because the data are almost all compiled by accountants, but accounting is not economics, so there is no scientific validity to it. It's basically a more complicated version of trying to analyze baseball using the bowling definition of "strike."
    Not at all. That applies to experimental sciences, but there are observational sciences where scientists cannot control conditions, such as meteorology, astrophysics and paleontology.
    The basic problem is the invalid definitions.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speaking of people who need to study economics to know what they are talking about, many economics textbooks identify capitalism as an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled.
    All such theories are false, because the means of production comprises factors that should not be controlled by the same agents. The very term, "the means of production" is a Marxist conflation of land -- natural resources -- and capital -- products of labor devoted to production -- that erases the economic understanding classical economics achieved, and is thus anti-economics.
    Source?

    Thought not.
    Nonsense. That does not in any way describe feudalism, and the preceding definitions are almost as bad.
    A free market by definition cannot exist under capitalism because capitalism requires private ownership of land, which forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies are not allowed in a free market.
     
  21. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry both Hong Kong and China have prospered under capitalism. There is no such economic system as "geoism."

    Probably more accurate to say that both pretend the other side is the wrong option.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they haven't. They are not capitalist because by definition, capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production: producer goods and land. As all land is publicly owned in HK and China, they are not capitalist.
    Yes there is: the economic system where privately created value is privately owned, and publicly created value is publicly owned.
    No. Both pretend that the other is the only option. Look at you, pretending geoism is not an option. See how that works?
     
  23. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a convenient addition by throwing land into the definition of an economic system. Sorry, won't work with me.

    Another invention.

    Naive. I'm a capitalist and I know all about other economic systems. I have even lived under a few. See how that works? You are being misinformed by someone with an anti capitalist agenda. Broaden your horizons.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you incorrectly imagine "the means of production" consist of? In classical economics, "land" means natural resources, not just locations on the earth's solid surface, and is considered one of the three factors of production, along with "capital" (products of labor devoted to production) and "labor." It was Marx who conveniently subtracted land as a distinct factor of production, conflating it with capital as, "the means of production." You evidently think Marx was on the right track.
    :lol: Yet Marx's anti-economic subtraction of knowledge from classical economics worked with you. Color me surprised....
    It is the conflation of natural resources with products of labor as "the means of production" -- by Karl Marx, as it happens -- that is the invention. Before Marx, everyone was aware of the fact that land is not capital. You are now not aware of it because you have swallowed Marx's error.
    Fact. You have been devoting a lot of effort to pretending there is no such thing as geoism. The post I am currently responding to is merely another example.
    No you don't. You even pretend there is no difference between natural resources and products of labor, and thus no such thing as geoism.
    Yeah: you think because worms live under rocks, they know all about rocks.
    You mean the well-known anti-capitalist agenda the facts have?
    It is certain that I have read incomparably more economics than you, and of more different schools.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2022
  25. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see no point in repeating what I said earlier. You are free to do so.
     

Share This Page