adirondack wrote:Politically speaking, the UK and U.S. politically have been socialist in most parts of their economies, especially the healthcare industry for almost 100 years now. Since they have central banks then they can inflate money to socialize education (terrible education in the U.S. public schools, my wife is a teacher), control the Agriculture, etc.... The U.S. Presidents cabinet is what socialism controls in politics is. Public intervention in all sectors of society.
Beg to differ on that point adirondack, if by perfectly free market economy you mean an economy that has no discernible leadership or rules, then perhaps what you call free economy is better described as anarchy inflicted upon subjects who don't even know where the next hit will come from, let alone by whom it is being inflicted upon them. Perhaps I badly missunderstood your point, but I could not help making this assumption when reading that you think the US and UK economies were/are socialist in most parts. Indeed, there are admitted influences on the economy by cabinet or president in each of these countries, I just don't get it why would it be equal to a system that is admittedly socialist.
Is it a bad thing to have a visible leader? Is it a bad thing that a leader have influence on what s/he is leading?
I'm saying the politics intervening in the economy are socialist, because any intervention in the economy is via economic science called socialist. Economic speaking there is only the free market and then there is socialism. The interventionalism leads to socialism, but there has never been absolute socialism because it is economically impossible. There has to be a free market somewhere in order to pay for things.
You're conflating the social science called politics with the social science called economics. They are two different subjects. I am providing what in economics all gov't interventions into the market are called. I haven't ventured into what the political influence is other than that it does exist via legislation. Maybe that is partly my fault because I'm used to seeing that economics is not politics. Two different subjects that for instance at school, it would involve two different instructors teaching two totally different subjects.
Evinnra wrote:If there are highly skilled economic scientists arguing, the eyes of most people glaze over. That is not to say people are not interested in the economy in general, rather that the science of economy is so complex that not even economists look confident making their point in public.
Right. Exactly. And thereby some people don't realize what it means when interest rates are artificially lowered and highered and don't realize how that directly effects them. So when things crash people look in the wrong places for answers. They don't realize what's happening, but some economists do. To the point that the academia has been bought off by the Federal Reserve and what is taught in the classroom has gotten away from the science of economics. It's a very easy way to decimate whole economies and sustain political power Machiavellian style. The economics of the Fed. is economics, but it is currently teaching and involving a pseudo-science because they are the intelligentsia vanguard of the political power, especially as of the last 100 years or so. It is this complicated aspect of economics that the psuedo-scientists give it, because economics taught scientifically as of old and in some universities that still do teach the current economic sciences (not the pseudo-science of the Fed.), they know what is happening. They see the people getting duped. It's rather unfortunate.
Evinnra wrote: Like with philosophy, unless one is trained in the topic, the most significant nuances in an argument escapes the general public. Yet it is the general public that is involved in making a good life for themselves by thinking clearly (using philosophy) and investing their money wisely ( science of economy).
But when there are central planners forcing bad economic decisions on people in a void of justice, even if people know what's happening and try to save wisely. They can't. The fox is in the hen house.
Evinnra wrote: We've got to the point that admittedly, someone trained in the classics can make far more useful predictions about economic realities than economists them selves.
I'm only repeating a lot of what other economist argue. I find it simple and very persuasive, because it has predicted the Great Depression (Ludwig Von Mises predicted the Great Depression nearly a decade before it happen), it had predicted that the U.S. will detach from gold on the global market due (Hazlitt did about twenty years before it happened all based on the policies at the time. It is all predictable on if A happens, ceteris paribus
then B will happen. Nixon ended up doing this ca. 1970). The 1970's crisis was predicted about one or two decades beforehand, same thing. So was the housing bubble by various people about a decade before it happened. They did it theoretically, using economic theorizing, mainly the theory called Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Watch the interest rate manipulation and the consequences are very predictable. Then further interventions are also further predictable as to what kinds of consequences they lead to.
Evinnra wrote: It is the complexity of the topic I blame, not the economists who enthusiastically got themselves into a topic that consequently developed into a science as comples as theoretical physics.
Right. And yet all theories of good economic science point out 'do not intervene in the market'. I mean economically by manipulating economic influences such as interest rates, etc.... Again, politics is different. Justice is a whole other field as well that one field of justice is called criminology. The complexity of the psuedo-scientists confuses the public, but it's also because they don't even know what to do. The Fed. Chairman has said numerous times of recent that these are new issues, they are thinking creatively. In other words, they're throwing out experiments upon the society and seeing what works. They are doing experiments on the public. They have no clue what to do, in their own words. So they are 'being creative', trying 'new things'. It's all because central economic planning doesn't work, never has, never will. It's theoretically impossible and all practices or attempts only further validate this. But without a theory to begin with (which the Fed. doesn't currently have, even the universities are trying to develop new theories as they all admit since this past housing crisis they their theories didn't work), without that theory, then they are blind. They have no thoughts as to what to do. And they never will, because they can't figure out what decision Johnny will make when it goes to the store. Heck Johnny might not even know yet. Supply and demand.
Evinnra wrote:If I didn't know better, I could assume that economists are out to dazzle the public with arbitrarily chosen facts and figures ( smokes and mirrors) and blame the ignorance and greed of the public if it can't figure out their 'magic'.
It is magic. Economist who have stuck to the science compare the Fed. psuedo-economists as if they are astrologers when the topic is astronomy. They are that off. They are astrologers trying to do astronomy. Not that astrology is anything bad, but to dabble in the economy, in astronomy with astrology is like asking a baker to come and fix a car.
I apologise if my post appeared to convey a lack of respect for the science of economics.
For me, the science of economy is like the science of psychology, I respect it because
I don't claim to have any experties in it. That is not to say I will toss out all my common sense discernment just because I admit that there are experts in the field. As a mother, I don't need a psychology degree - though it could be useful - to bring up my children. As a consumer, I don't need a degree in economics to spend my money - though having a degree in economics might be very useful.
No need to apologize. I took no offense to anything and all posts that have responded to me have been excellent, informative, and very nice. I like the people here.
To continue, at least for the moment psychologists are not making impacts on our lives directly by policies or direct actions that reach every single person daily. Economists on the other hand are. And it distorts the perceptions and conclusions of people to the point of rebellion (Greece), and poverty (much of the world). And how much food and energy currently is, etc.... It's not the studying of it that impacts people's lives. It's the implementations of policies in economics without any theoretical insight that effects the whole of societies that is detrimental. I still would need to go to a psychologist office down the road to get help from them. Economist are directly in the lives of people whether they care or not.
Evinnra wrote: Nor do people need a degree in philosophy to lead a healthy and happy life - though having it might be very useful. On the end, commmon sense must dictate what we do, and for that all we need is to take a close look at what is happening in the here and now.
Common sense is being dictated to at the moment. Any common sense drives people have will lead to situations that where caused by central planners and the lack of justice. They are pulling the strings of every single individual and nobody can do anything about it at the moment. Save or start a garden, but they've already created the crisis and they are only making it worse. Savings will be worthless more and more. They already are and have been, but the threat is real. They've already done much of the damage and they are only going to be doing more.
If common sense dictates that we do know things, we do experience life it does not seem clever to ignore this information. Right?
Yes. I just don't like to have a few people have such direct manipulation means over the essential livelihoods that I depend on, such as food, shelter, and heat (I have enough clothes to last me and with heat, at least I can chop wood). Taxes are going up probably next year so we're trying to get out of this house because times are going to only get worse.