What is your brand of Economics?

[Breezy]

What sort of domestic Economic policies are you in favor of? What category do you fit into? A few examples ( I realize these may not perfectly describe you. but feel free to elaborate)

Little State involvement, Large Free Market

Small Free Market, Heavy State services

Total State operation of the Economy

Anarcho-Capitalism.

Bonus Question: Who best represents your views?

Marx/Engels
Adam Smith
Friedrich Hayek
John Maynard Keynes
Milton Friedman
Paul Krugman
Murray Rothbard
John Kenneth Galbraith






Before we start I fully expect this to degrade into a name calling insult-a-thon in which words like 'Hitler' and 'Slavery' get thrown around liberally, but try to wait just a little bit before you panties are firmly in a twist.

[DonD13]

free market and a strong state

you need a strong state to prevent companies from feeding people with poison for profit

[StephHamann]

Pol Pot

kill all intellectuals so that the bran stans can rule

[GimmeThat]

as for Domestic economic policy, I favor that of the Wall/Ocean policy. which is to ignore what happens in the globe.

but as for economic policy, I favor one that is a global economic policy.

[Cactus-Sack]

Anarcho-capitalism, or Austrian economics.

Rothbard and Hayek.

[AirMike]

Austrian right here :rockon:

Ludwig von Mises is my favourite, I'm currently halfway through the Human Action and gotta say, this along with Rothbard's Man, Economy and State is the best piece of work in terms of economics I've read so far, it requires a lot of focus while reading but its definitely worth it

[longhornfan1234]

Austrian econs

[Cactus-Sack]

Austrian econs
Every opinion that you have ever expressed on this website has been thoroughly Keynesian you jackass, fake conservative.

[longhornfan1234]

Every opinion that you have ever expressed on this website has been thoroughly Keynesian you jackass, fake conservative.
:roll: :roll:

[Cactus-Sack]

That was a statement of truth. You've been full of praise for the last two presidents, who have both followed a Keynesian economic model.

Calling yourself an Austrian is downright confusing.

[longhornfan1234]

That was a statement of truth. You've been full of praise for the last two presidents, who have both followed a Keynesian economic model.

Calling yourself an Austrian is downright confusing.

Please find a quote of me supporting Bush and Obama on their economic policies.

[Jailblazers7]

I don't know, I think I find a little but of everything convincing. I don't have strong enough opinions to say that I back one philosophy over all others. I think Keynes and Friedman were probably the best economists on that list but I like some of Hayek's political writings.

[TheGreatDeraj]

free market and a strong state

you need a strong state to prevent companies from feeding people with poison for profit

Disagree wholeheartedly,

we need an informed consumer capable of making an educated decision, not a strong state

[Jailblazers7]

Disagree wholeheartedly,

we need an informed consumer capable of making an educated decision, not a strong state

Difficult to place all of that burden on the consumer. It is impossible to be informed about all the different types of products in a complex market economy.

[Gr]

Bonus Question: Who best represents your views?

Marx/Engels
Adam Smith
Friedrich Hayek
John Maynard Keynes
Milton Friedman
Paul Krugman
Murray Rothbard
John Kenneth Galbraith

People like to point out that Adam Smith supported free markets. What they forget is that he supported land value taxation. You cannot have a free market when the landowner is allowed to be an economic freeloader.

[~primetime~]

http://www.jannigogo.com/dealmac/voodoo-economics.jpg

[DonD13]

Disagree wholeheartedly,

we need an informed consumer capable of making an educated decision, not a strong state

imagine a society without regulation of therapeutic goods

[9512]

Non consumerism, conservation, simplicity practiced via voluntarism.

In short those who are Americans/Anglo Saxon would call me a commie/pink0 :lol and I must really hate freedom.

[KevinNYC]

Weren't the Austrians been predicting that the dollar should have collapsed by now and we should be in midst of hyperinflation?

[TheGreatDeraj]

Difficult to place all of that burden on the consumer. It is impossible to be informed about all the different types of products in a complex market economy.

Disagree. It is the consumers responsibility to be informed on what they are using. Especially us in the first world, with the prevalence of the internet and devices like the smart phone it is becoming easier and easier to get any info you need about a product instantly, there isn't really an excuse to not know what you're using. With the new augmented reality technologies like Google glass and the new Amazon smart phone it will be even easier.



imagine a society without regulation of therapeutic goods


I could easily if the consumer had access to all information and studies related to the good. Why would we need some governing body telling us what we can or cannot use if we had all the information and could make an informed decision ourselves?



Weren't the Austrians been predicting that the dollar should have collapsed by now and we should be in midst of hyperinflation?
Didn't the Keynesians promise not to create another recession like they did with the Great Depression?

[Jailblazers7]

Disagree. It is the consumers responsibility to be informed on what they are using. Especially us in the first world, with the prevalence of the internet and devices like the smart phone it is becoming easier and easier to get any info you need about a product instantly, there isn't really an excuse to not know what you're using. With the new augmented reality technologies like Google glass and the new Amazon smart phone it will be even easier.

The cost to obtaining information is getting lower but the cost of understanding information stays the same. With zero expertise, how am I supposed to know what my prescribed medicine will do to my body? How am I supposed to know what amount of chemical "X" is safe to have in my food? Can I trust an unregulated market to regulate that chemical dosage or do I need to test the food I just bought at the grocery store? If the health damages of that chemical don't appear until 20 years later, then how am I supposed to adjust my consumption habits? A lot of the information that you want people to simply pull up on their iPhone exists because the government says that it has to.

You've taken a strong moral stance that people are responsible for what they consume. And I don't disagree with that. But in jumping to one binary you have given permission to producers to act dishonestly. And I'm sure your answer to that is the free market will respond to a sub-par product and the market will heal itself through information and supply/demand. But how long does it take to correct? And what is the human/financial cost during the time it takes to correct itself? Agencies like the FDA are far from perfect but they didn't just appear because some paternalistic liberal wanted to stir a little socialism into the economy.

[KevinNYC]

Didn't the Keynesians promise not to create another recession like they did with the Great Depression?

So Keynesians caused the Great Depression? And they promised they would never be another recession?

I'm afraid I don't follow.

[TheGreatDeraj]

The cost to obtaining information is getting lower but the cost of understanding information stays the same. With zero expertise, how am I supposed to know what my prescribed medicine will do to my body? How am I supposed to know what amount of chemical "X" is safe to have in my food?

Same way we do now, with scientific studies and expert opinions.



Can I trust an unregulated market to regulate that chemical dosage or do I need to test the food I just bought at the grocery store?


you say unregulated market, but that doesn't exist. It is either regulated by force through government mandate or freely regulated by the consumers and consumer advocacy groups. For instance, the FDA has a "Organic" label that has certain regulations, but most people who use organic foods look to independent private organizations who have much tougher standards for "organic" food than even the government.



If the health damages of that chemical don't appear until 20 years later, then how am I supposed to adjust my consumption habits?


Firstly, let's not pretend that just because of government regulation that we are protected from health risks. For instance, we do not know enough about GMO(Genetically Modified Organisms) and there is a good chance they are not good for us. Perhaps 20 years down the line we will see health damages. Some countries in the EU have banned GMOs, in Europe there is an international seed vault that consists entirely of nonGMO seeds due to concerns. Some companies are even trying to ban labels that say they are non GMO. Government regulations are not the most effective ways to regulate.

Your concern is a valid, and as humans we really don't have a answer for it. We can't do long term testing on every product before we release it.

However, when the people rely on government regulations, they do not do their own research they just accept that if the FDA says its okay, then it must be.




A lot of the information that you want people to simply pull up on their iPhone exists because the government says that it has to.


true, this is a hard one and I haven't found a solid answer. The only thing I have it is the people responsibility to demand the necessary information that they need to make an informed choice. And if the company refuses that that is probably a sign something is wrong and to vote using their money elsewhere.





You've taken a strong moral stance that people are responsible for what they consume. And I don't disagree with that. But in jumping to one binary you have given permission to producers to act dishonestly. And I'm sure your answer to that is the free market will respond to a sub-par product and the market will heal itself through information and supply/demand. But how long does it take to correct?



If the consumers have all the test, studies, information readily available then it should not take long to correct at all. Think of what happened with Donald Sterling, the social media backlash was instantaneous and overwhelming and that was just a comment.

Now imagine a society where every individual takes responsibility for what they consume and someone comes across information where there health is at risk? You can bet they would take to social media to protect family, friends and loved ones. It would spread far more quickly than the red tape battle it would take to pass legislation.




And what is the human/financial cost during the time it takes to correct itself? Agencies like the FDA are far from perfect but they didn't just appear because some paternalistic liberal wanted to stir a little socialism into the economy.

I believe it would be faster without the FDA.

Under the government regulation what happens when a business or corporation does something wrong?

Well, the individuals aren't looking out for themselves, because that's what they pay the FDA for, so it probably goes unnoticed for a while until the FDA takes wind. Then they secretly fine them and life goes on.

Now what would happen if a business or corporation did something wrong, but there was no FDA and the people had to regulate themselves?

Well people have to look out for themselves, so they are going to be on alert and looking for any cause of danger for themselves or their family. If something were wrong they'd want other people to know, and since there's no FDA to take care of things like that, then the person would go to the internet, social media or other outlets. As the information spread many would stop going there and the business would lose money. Lot's more money than under a FDA fine and way more people would know about the wrongdoing and the company's brand would be hurt. That's one of the worst things to happen is having there brand hurt, that is much worse than a fine.


The FDA and institutions like it are bad for the American people. These programs create a system and a culture that pushes our people towards being lazy people with no critical thinking skills that just relying on the government to protect them and tell them what is best instead of being strong, intelligent people that can think and thrive by being self-dependent.

[TheGreatDeraj]

So Keynesians caused the Great Depression? And they promised they would never be another recession?

I'm afraid I don't follow.



Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/

In 2002 before 2008 recession and Quantitative Easing etc.

[KevinNYC]

Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/

In 2002 before 2008 recession and Quantitative Easing etc.

Wow, you actually have something to back up your misunderstanding.

Do you think Ben Bernanke in 2002 was speaking as Keneysian? At a conference to honor Milton Freidman at the University of Chicago? You know why they chose Bernanke right?

Do you get the joke Bernanke is making?

[Crystallas]

I study all flavors of economics, and not just as a hobby/enthusiast.

Polarization of economic beliefs is just how some people pick and choose their "brand" of economics to commit and justify to their political ideology.

Objectivity > fanboyism

[Inactive]

Same way we do now, with scientific studies and expert opinions.Who funds these studies? Who hires the experts?

Firstly, let's not pretend that just because of government regulation that we are protected from health risks. No one has, or likely would argue that government regulation could ever completely protect people from health risks. Let's not pretend that perfection is realistic standard.

For instance, we do not know enough about GMO(Genetically Modified Organisms) and there is a good chance they are not good for us. Perhaps 20 years down the line we will see health damages.It seems extremely unlikely to me that GMOs are good or bad for us. Each organism is different, and each modification is different.

This is a good example of why individuals are not capable of making decisions about these things themselves. An ordinary person cannot understand what has been modified, to what end, or how it will interact with their body. Most people give it all one label, and declare it good or bad. They don't have time for nuance.

Some countries in the EU have banned GMOs, in Europe there is an international seed vault that consists entirely of nonGMO seeds due to concerns.So their regulations have protected their citizens from what you believe is a health risk? And they've alleviated the long term concerns by preserving existing seeds? Sounds like they did a pretty good job.

Some companies are even trying to ban labels that say they are non GMO.Companies are trying to mislead the public, so that even if they share your concerns regarding GMO, they won't be able to avoid them without going to great lengths?

Government regulations are not the most effective ways to regulate.Then you conclude with this? The rest of the paragraph reads as an argument for stronger regulation.

Your concern is a valid, and as humans we really don't have a answer for it. We can't do long term testing on every product before we release it.Not every product is likely to have significant health affects one way or another. Other things pose plausible concerns. You just described how the EU is willing to proscribe the sale of products for which there are long term concerns, until they are shown to be safe.

However, when the people rely on government regulations, they do not do their own research they just accept that if the FDA says its okay, then it must be.I disagree. In my view, the people who are inclined to research those sorts of things still do it. I don't believe that most people would do much research under any circumstances.

People go crazy over the evils of aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, plastic, gmos, subway bread, or whatever happens to be causing the panic of any given month. Some express skepticism over the trustworthiness of the FDA. Others believe that it doesn't have the necessary authority, or resources to effectively protect the public.

Do people do more research on things which aren't regulated by the FDA, e.g supplements which don't make specific health claims? Do the companies which sell those supplements get away with adulterating them, providing inconsistent doses, and containing contaminants, or ingredients which don't appear on the label? When they get caught, does the public react strongly? Did the public do more research prior to government regulation?


true, this is a hard one and I haven't found a solid answer. The only thing I have it is the people responsibility to demand the necessary information that they need to make an informed choice. And if the company refuses that that is probably a sign something is wrong and to vote using their money elsewhere. Then the brand which they all switched to realizes that demand has doubled, so they raise prices. This forces the poor to buy from the original company again. The market ends up split between the many companies who refuse to provide any information, but sell cheap, and the few who provide information, but charge a premium.


If the consumers have all the test, studies, information readily available then it should not take long to correct at all. Think of what happened with Donald Sterling, the social media backlash was instantaneous and overwhelming and that was just a comment. What happens when the consumers have access to all sorts of studies, but many of them were conducted by the company which created the product? Perhaps others were conducted by their competitors. How does the public know who to trust?

Perhaps they pay some independent third party to conduct studies. What if the companies pay those third parties to come to favorable conclusions?

Do you expect every person to have the time, and knowledge to review studies on every topic, and be capable criticizing their methods and conclusions?

Sterling has been a racist for a long time. Everyone who pays attention to NBA gossip heard stories, and it was easy to find evidence. But there was no public outrage until everyone could witness it directly. Social media gossip wasn't enough.


Now imagine a society where every individual takes responsibility for what they consume and someone comes across information where there health is at risk? You can bet they would take to social media to protect family, friends and loved ones. It would spread far more quickly than the red tape battle it would take to pass legislation.I don't share your intuition. It sounds to me like a naive, ahistorical fantasy.