sure its a set system with pretty consistent rules but its all just a scam created to sustain the elite status. if the soviets won, the global economy would work completely different and they would have their own widely accepted "economic science" and call capitalism a crazy failed notion. bi

economics is not sustainable.

sure there are equations that uses maths to tell their story but where is the atmosphere in all of this?

biodiversity?

culture?

nonexistent. \The idea that the Earth's finite resources can be owned is severely flawed and unsustainable. Why are we still so primitive?

1/12/2013 6:54:56 PM

why are you allowed to post in TSB?

1/12/2013 7:04:06 PM

Quote :

"if the soviets won, the global economy would not work"

FTFY

or more likely they'd leave their failed system a bit later than they actually did

I mean seriously, the most important agent of change in the USSR was Gorbachev himself, he was born and raised under the Communist state and understood its flaws

Also take the example of China, which has left communism in everything but the name of its official party, and by adopting capitalistic practices it has become much wealthier than under Mao (of course, Milton Friedman's hope that economic liberty would lead to individual liberty is still forthcoming)

1/12/2013 7:34:58 PM

communism only works in a closed system. communist state can never operate fundamentally when there is capitlism happening to undermine it. This is why cuba and north korea have to isolate themselves but by isolation they don't have enough resources to operate properly. theoretically, the whole "world" or at least a big country like usa would have to be communist.

also define "works" because our current global system "works" but certainly does not work.

It doesn't work for 80% of the worlds population who live in extreme poverty and it certainly doesn't work for the planet and biosphere which are being destroyed by the system. Part of the fairy tale of economics is that it works if people are getting rich. Destroying the planet is "economic progress"

[Edited on January 12, 2013 at 8:37 PM. Reason : mining deferestation and pollution]

1/12/2013 8:34:50 PM

The kind of "closed system" that you advocate for communism is against human nature; I mean although people are naturally altruistic, they're not nearly as selfless as they would need to be for a communist system to be viable.

1/12/2013 8:49:03 PM

I'm not saying it is viable per se. I am just saying what we have now is no more viable but most people pretend it is.

1/12/2013 8:52:02 PM

We may not have a choice...

The population is getting larger, while the actual amount of humans needed to run our population shrinks.

A good example is the imminent deployment of self-driving vehicles. The entire profession of a cab driver is in serious jeopardy, where are these displaced workers supposed to go?

Corporations clearly don't care enough about workers displaced by computers (nor should they be, IMO), so it's a problem for society (aka government) to handle.

1/12/2013 9:07:59 PM

^^indeed, like I heard that if the underdeveloped world became as developed as Western Europe, we'd need the resources of five Earths

1/12/2013 9:16:41 PM

Holy fuck what a stupid thread with stupid posts.

1/13/2013 9:13:35 AM

Quote :

"We may not have a choice... The population is getting larger, while the actual amount of humans needed to run our population shrinks. A good example is the imminent deployment of self-driving vehicles. The entire profession of a cab driver is in serious jeopardy, where are these displaced workers supposed to go? Corporations clearly don't care enough about workers displaced by computers (nor should they be, IMO), so it's a problem for society (aka government) to handle."

I think this is a very serious issue that were, as a society, need to begin discussing. Over the next 20 years its going to be a game-changer as more and more jobs begin to be automated. It's not unrealistic to think that a significant portion of jobs in every field imaginable will be performed by robots or computers soon. What are all these unemployed people going to be doing other than starving and rioting?

1/13/2013 12:00:41 PM

In 1800 over 75% of workers worked in agriculture. Today it is less than 2%. Where did they go?
A capitalist economy allocates workers just like it allocates everything else. If more jobs are needed prices will adjust to produce more jobs. Well, normally they do. The government loves making such adjustments illegal.

1/14/2013 11:29:19 AM

your claim is that we have fewer agricultural workers because of decreased demand? are you choosing to just ignore their comments about automation?

1/14/2013 11:43:37 AM

Economics is a science like political science or psychology are sciences. If someone told you they've crunched the numbers and [insert any political event here] is going to happen in precisely 3 years, you'd call them an idiot, and rightfully so.

Economics is and will always be a "soft" science because economic outcomes depend on subjective value preferences. Trending and forecasting works over some period of time, and then those forecasts become completely useless because of some major, unforeseen event that ushers in a change of preferences (or at least, order of preferences) among the population.

With that said, my message to the OP:



I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2013 12:06:02 PM

economics should mostly be about gold

1/14/2013 12:35:54 PM

Quote :

"your claim is that we have fewer agricultural workers because of decreased demand? are you choosing to just ignore their comments about automation?"

No, we have fewer agricultural workers because the free market economy destroyed their jobs. It doesn't really matter why they were destroyed. No doubt some bankrupt farm owners blamed their plight on demand driven low prices, some blamed it on high prices for farm equipment, some blamed it on booming productivity, some blamed it on the banks, some blamed it on big corporate farms, some blamed it on government policy. Point is, over time they all went away and found jobs in other sectors of the economy where they could be productive. To suggest this process of displaced workers finding work in other sectors of the economy better have a good reason, as this process has worked just fine for as long as we've had free market economies.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/14/2013 4:42:33 PM

We have fewer agriculture workers because agriculture is much more efficient now

1/14/2013 5:44:35 PM

Quote :

"To suggest this process of displaced workers finding work in other sectors of the economy better have a good reason, as this process has worked just fine for as long as we've had free market economies."

To suggest that just because something has never happened before, that it will never happen, makes you look like an asshole.

1/14/2013 6:22:54 PM

I said something that has never happened before was very unlikely, unless you had a good reason why this time would be different. No idea why that would make me the asshole.

1/14/2013 10:18:04 PM

Worker productivity is up, wages are falling, and wealth is concentrating, and has been for a few decades.

This trend isn't sustainable.

It points to displaced workers taking lower-paying jobs, while the entrenched upper class reinvests in technology to maintain their wealth.

1/15/2013 1:14:07 AM

Wealth disparity is a predictable consequence when you flood the market with credit. The people that don't understand debt will become poor. There has never been a time in history where even poor people had so much access to credit as they do today, and not surprisingly, we see the gap between the rich and the poor growing.

1/15/2013 12:33:38 PM

Wow this is a horrible thread

1/15/2013 12:49:32 PM

Quote :

"Wealth disparity is a predictable consequence when you flood the market with credit. The people that don't understand debt will become poor."

It really doesn't matter who takes out the credit, as long as it's regressive relative to wealth, and it will be.

1/15/2013 12:59:31 PM

Quote :

"Wow this is a horrible thread"

Agreed. My only contribution will be a link to this website http://www.econlib.org/

1/15/2013 2:54:24 PM