Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.
That's the rub. Most approach macro economics with an outcome in mind rather than trying to understand how an economy works and then trying to leverage that knowledge to its best advantage...Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.
It's alive!!! My schooling begins.Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.
Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change.Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.
In theory, you should be correct.Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change.
Well there you go. You are claiming that socialism causes hyperinflation, others claim it is the printing of too much money, some claim that it is restrictions or reductions in the production or availability of goods. All depends on your ideology what you want to blame hyperinflation on.The most socialist economic systems of years past have failed and been subject to hyperinflation, as I've stated on other threads - 70s Chile under Allende, 80s Eastern European blocs, Central America under Sandanista influence. They've all been command economy flops where you could wake up any day and watch your money not be worth the paper it's written on.
There are a lot of tax and spenders who would suggest that they get medals, and that anyone who doesn't understand there position is ignorant about economics.While some people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler, I talk about going back and killing baby Roosevelt. His New Deal was arguably the most damaging framework this nation has ever seen. Problems arise when people don't realize that you can make a real mess of things when you break out the Keynesian techniques, because they are nothing more than short-term solutions. However, they never use them as such. They want to use short-term solutions on long-term problems, then bitch and wonder why the recipe is flawed beyond recognition.
Today's tax-and-spend crowd need to be lined up and shot.
You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change..
There are differing schools of thought on physics and aspects of physics.You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.
Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.
WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.
Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.
In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.
Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.
Commie Card. Ergo, epic fail.In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.
Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.
It's not a fail when the shoe fits. Marxists need to stay in the Philosophy forum and never the Economics forum, since Marx was a philosopher, not an economist.Commie Card. Ergo, epic fail.
Repeating an epic fail, is a fail on a level that no word can describe.It's not a fail when the shoe fits. Marxists need to stay in the Philosophy forum and never the Economics forum, since Marx was a philosopher, not an economist.
False. Free markets only entail permitting all voluntary transactions and banning theft. The profit motive is optional.In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit.
?Watching you guys debate economics is like watching fat ladies in a beauty contest.
Conservatives often explain economics based upon the way that they think it should work, not the way that it actually does work.WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.
I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.
Yes!Conservatives often explain economics based upon the way that they think it should work, not the way that it actually does work.
No, there aren't. They are competing theories that are testable. Not differing schools of physics. There is only one physics and its goal is understanding the physical universe and it has one method -- the scientific method. It has no other agenda. Economics, however, differ as to goals and methods.There are differing schools of thought on physics and aspects of physics.
WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.
I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.
Saying simplistic things doesn't really make you look anything other than simplistic. There are lots of economic disagreements in our society and the idea that only goal of economics is profit is rather silly, even for you.In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.
Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.