Is the Forum, "Economics", non-political or political (1 Viewer)

[Linc]

1) jobs reports always get opposite reviews from the two parties; 2) who is responsible for the total accumulated debt? 3) how 'bout entitlements? 4) whose fault was the downgrade? 5) and then there's sequestration 6) anyone for flat tax versus progressive? 7) natural disaster aid? The End) please add or subtract as you wish

The best part is there is a lot of talent on these boards. The worst part is the talent is being wasted not solving anything. ANYTHING

 

[Linc]

Which is more fair, a "flat" state/federal income tax, or a "progressive" tax? Are you TEA or maybe a scofflaw? Did the so-called IRS "scandal" have any roots in economics?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Ask one question and start a new thread with it.

 

[KevinKohler]

It's the other way around. Politics is economics.


"It's the economy, stupid!".

 

[Mach]

1) jobs reports always get opposite reviews from the two parties; 2) who is responsible for the total accumulated debt? 3) how 'bout entitlements? 4) whose fault was the downgrade? 5) and then there's sequestration 6) anyone for flat tax versus progressive? 7) natural disaster aid? The End) please add or subtract as you wish
The best part is there is a lot of talent on these boards. The worst part is the talent is being wasted not solving anything. ANYTHING

As much as I enjoy DP and am woefully negligent on getting them a nice donation, it's not for solving the nations economic issues. It is likely for entertainment first, and some amount of debate yielding a better understanding of high profile economic issues. Politics means more than one person. If economics involves more than one person, it involves politics.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

It is very similar to global warming. Once politicians get their hands on an issue, it becomes political.

 

[austrianecon]

It is very similar to global warming. Once politicians get their hands on an issue, it becomes political.

Horrible analogy. I'll start with economic side of your failure. Socialist aren't socialist because they are social. It's because the subscribe to economics of Socialism. Same with Communist (moneyless and classless believe), and Capitalist (private ownership of assets and goods). Now you have subsets of Socialism, Communism and Capitalism.

Socialism: Planned, Market, State/Self managed and out of that comes the political aspect.
Communism: Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism and Stalinism and these are heavily politically influenced economic theory.
Capitalism: State, Free-Market, Social-Market (think most of Europe), Corporate, Mixed (Third-Way), Financial, Anarcho and so on.. and again like Socialism then comes the political aspect.


Global Warming in itself hasn't been proved to be reasonably true. So it's been renamed Climate Change to cover up indescrepencies. But those who heavily believe in it are very political and are social justice and redistribution hacks. They are just as bad as those who believe the earth was created less then 4,000 years ago. The world is 4 billion years old. The world has only been warming for the last 120 years? Yeah.. and I am a monkey's uncle. The earth has always had warm and cool periods. Ups and Downs. We see it in our "history" books. Valley Forge, Irish potato famine happened during LIA and the MWP happened as well.


Economics is theory with politics. Global Warming is "science" with undisputed facts. But as we know science isn't a 100% and always changes. So if you are claiming Global Warming is just a theory.. okay. But I don't think you are.