Really large sweeping economic changes tends to have significant unexpected problems created from them. It would be bad if we lifted everyone up and then destroyed our ability to maintain that new status in the process.
Voters want conviction. Republicans have it, and Democrats don’t.
Most economies are neoliberal/neoclassical, they’re literally a poverty cult based on empirically proven wrong axioms such as “printing money creates inflation”, “rising the minimum wage creates unemployment”, or “public expenditure in healthcare, pensions and education is bad for the economy”. You should do the opposite of what most economists preach.
they’re literally a poverty cult based on empirically proven wrong axioms
Here’s where the fun begins because the highlighted portion above makes it clear you have never at any point taken a course in economics.
“printing money creates inflation”,
It does which is why monetary policy is important to focus on.
“rising the minimum wage creates unemployment”
This isn’t that common as most of the studies done recently suggests this is not the case. There are some who still maintain that in specific situations this can occur but it isn’t as common as you state.
“public expenditure in healthcare, pensions and education is bad for the economy”.
Please provide either a valid academic source for this or an opinion piece printed in a credible newspaper from an actual economist (eg Robert Reich is not an economist while Krugman and Mankiew are)
You should do the opposite of what most economists preach.
This is the clearest sign you have no education in the field. I have a buddy who focuses on healthcare economics why would you ask him about trade policy? That’s like asking your dentist if you beed elbow surgery.
“Oh, you haven’t taken capitalist propaganda courses regarding economics? Then your opinion is invalid”
As a matter of fact, people who teach against neoliberalism are in some universities. Prof. Richard Wolff, or Dr. Eduardo Garzón are a few of them. The fact that you took your econ-101 course to be gospel about reality without questioning the experimental validity of the models proponed by neoliberals tells me more about you than the name of any courses you’ve taken.
This isn’t that common as most of the studies done recently suggests this is not the case.
It isn’t that common?! For fuck’s sake, mate, it’s literally the main argument used against rising minimum wages every single time the “debate” pops up. Rising minimum wages is such an obviously moral thing to do, that the only possible objection to it for the vast majority of the population is technical. That’s why the CIA put gazillions of dollars in the Economics academia over the past half a century to propagate neoliberalism. Yes, recent empyrical studies suggest this is not the case because most of the information floating around the field of economics is a lie.
Currency minting literally doesn’t serve even as a modest predictor of inflation. Look at a graph of inflation in the EU or in the US for the past 60 years. Try and match it with money creation, and you’ll see exactly 0 correlation. You’ll get the same with Japan and with UK, and with China. Look at the absolutely astonishing amounts of money created by the EU after the 2010 Euro crisis (M2 or M3 aggregates, huh, funny that I know that terminology, even without being brainwashed at the econ faculty?) and the CPI over that time. Now look at a single historical event (2022 Ukraine invasion) and the resulting inflationary tendencies, PROVEN EMPYRICALLY to be caused by rising energy prices due to natural gas, famously NOT because of a money minting event. Seriously, you’re just propagating empirically demonstrated lies.
When I say you shouldn’t trust most economists, I don’t mean you should trust no economist. I mean most contemporary economists have been brainwashed into believing in neoliberal propaganda that permeated academia and public policy since the Reagan/Thatcher/Milton Friedman era, when the CIA decided Keynesian economics weren’t oppressive enough to poor people. Economics is a beautiful field to study, but believing a neoliberal economist with regards to public policy would be like treating cancer with acupuncture.
Lmao, instead of arguing on the extensive comment I made (which proves I know what I’m talking about), you just go for the classic ad-hominem.
Again, economics is a lovely field and I’m quite passionate about it; the dominant economic thought is bullshit though, and your lack of coherent response to my points further proves that. You, presumably with an economics education, can’t answer to the simple points of an “uneducated” user like me
You have already made it clear you have never studied economics in an academic setting which means you do not really know anything about the subject just like I do 't know astrophysics because I did not study it.
Why would I waste my time reading posts from someone who starts out antagonistic and shows no understanding of the subject or its history?
Yeah, consequences like FDR getting elected President four times in a row. That was the last time the Democrats had a popular President.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but America’s ability to do much of anything is being dismantled before our eyes. The Democrats played it safe, so voters looked elsewhere.
60 years of unbelievable productivity gains and new technologies, and life has only gotten harder. I think we could do better than that. Bullshit excuses are easy to accept when it hasn’t hit you yet.
This isn’t “bullshit excuses” as you are focusing on the potential political gains and I am talking about the economic problems that could come about from sweeping economic changes.
When the New Deal passed the USA was a larger portion of the world economy and it was growing.
It’s absolutely bullshit. Most of what progressives want is stuff we had 50 years ago. The boldest new proposal is Medicare for All. Somehow every single other developed economy in the world can achieve universal healthcare, but the richest country in the world can’t manage it? BULLSHIT! While you wrong your hands people are dying and lives are being ruined every single day. It’s profane, and it’s pathetic. Yes, we can do a hell of a lot better.
I don’t think you are following this thread at all.
Large sweeping economic changes are usually bad. Medicare for all wouldn’t be a sweeping change unless we immediately banned all private insurances which M4A would not do. M4A would be increasing the efficiency of the American economy which is what economists want.
Large sweeping economic changes would be things like adding $5 to the federal minimum wage all at once. The economy would likely grow from an incremental move that added $5 over the course of a few years but spiking it hard and fast will kill a lot of businesses that would have been fine with $1/yr over 5 years. It does not help to increase the minimum wage if it causes rapid widespread unemployment (note: I am absolutely not arguing against a minimum wage increase just against a rapid shift).
And, where in the thread again was an instantaneous $5.00 raise to the minimum wage mentioned? Alluded to? Implied?
You are absolutely right, I’m not following the thread. I’m following the discussion, but the thread is a figment of your imagination, and I don’t know how to do that.
We were talking about whether large sweeping economic changes are a bad idea and whether incremental changes are better. You were arguing against that and I used minimum wage as an example.
Im tired of explaining things to you, so let’s stop here.
Let me try to explain something to you. “Large” is not a fixed concept, it’s a relative measure. Can you point to me where any bill or proposal for increasing the minimum wage has proposed doing it overnight? They always get phased in, even in the most progressive proposals. When you say “large”, or even “large sweeping”, no body is going to presume that you are jumping to something that far out of scope.
Really large sweeping economic changes tends to have significant unexpected problems created from them. It would be bad if we lifted everyone up and then destroyed our ability to maintain that new status in the process.
Agreed
“Changing shit means you have to adapt.”
So you’re saying it’s better to have the devil we know in the form of all the expected problems? What kind of regressive nonsense is this?
No, Im saying sweeping economic changes come with unforeseen consequences which is why many/most economists dont push for massive sweeping change.
Most economies are neoliberal/neoclassical, they’re literally a poverty cult based on empirically proven wrong axioms such as “printing money creates inflation”, “rising the minimum wage creates unemployment”, or “public expenditure in healthcare, pensions and education is bad for the economy”. You should do the opposite of what most economists preach.
Here’s where the fun begins because the highlighted portion above makes it clear you have never at any point taken a course in economics.
It does which is why monetary policy is important to focus on.
This isn’t that common as most of the studies done recently suggests this is not the case. There are some who still maintain that in specific situations this can occur but it isn’t as common as you state.
Please provide either a valid academic source for this or an opinion piece printed in a credible newspaper from an actual economist (eg Robert Reich is not an economist while Krugman and Mankiew are)
This is the clearest sign you have no education in the field. I have a buddy who focuses on healthcare economics why would you ask him about trade policy? That’s like asking your dentist if you beed elbow surgery.
“Oh, you haven’t taken capitalist propaganda courses regarding economics? Then your opinion is invalid”
As a matter of fact, people who teach against neoliberalism are in some universities. Prof. Richard Wolff, or Dr. Eduardo Garzón are a few of them. The fact that you took your econ-101 course to be gospel about reality without questioning the experimental validity of the models proponed by neoliberals tells me more about you than the name of any courses you’ve taken.
It isn’t that common?! For fuck’s sake, mate, it’s literally the main argument used against rising minimum wages every single time the “debate” pops up. Rising minimum wages is such an obviously moral thing to do, that the only possible objection to it for the vast majority of the population is technical. That’s why the CIA put gazillions of dollars in the Economics academia over the past half a century to propagate neoliberalism. Yes, recent empyrical studies suggest this is not the case because most of the information floating around the field of economics is a lie.
Currency minting literally doesn’t serve even as a modest predictor of inflation. Look at a graph of inflation in the EU or in the US for the past 60 years. Try and match it with money creation, and you’ll see exactly 0 correlation. You’ll get the same with Japan and with UK, and with China. Look at the absolutely astonishing amounts of money created by the EU after the 2010 Euro crisis (M2 or M3 aggregates, huh, funny that I know that terminology, even without being brainwashed at the econ faculty?) and the CPI over that time. Now look at a single historical event (2022 Ukraine invasion) and the resulting inflationary tendencies, PROVEN EMPYRICALLY to be caused by rising energy prices due to natural gas, famously NOT because of a money minting event. Seriously, you’re just propagating empirically demonstrated lies.
When I say you shouldn’t trust most economists, I don’t mean you should trust no economist. I mean most contemporary economists have been brainwashed into believing in neoliberal propaganda that permeated academia and public policy since the Reagan/Thatcher/Milton Friedman era, when the CIA decided Keynesian economics weren’t oppressive enough to poor people. Economics is a beautiful field to study, but believing a neoliberal economist with regards to public policy would be like treating cancer with acupuncture.
Went back and read this. I stand by my position. You also should read what I wrote because you are replying to points Im not making at all.
You already made your lack of understanding and education clear, why are you doubling down on that?
Economics is the study of the distribution of scarce resources. It isn’t inherently focused on money and Marxist economics is a thing.
Maybe dont reply and instead address your educational shortfalls.
Lmao, instead of arguing on the extensive comment I made (which proves I know what I’m talking about), you just go for the classic ad-hominem.
Again, economics is a lovely field and I’m quite passionate about it; the dominant economic thought is bullshit though, and your lack of coherent response to my points further proves that. You, presumably with an economics education, can’t answer to the simple points of an “uneducated” user like me
You have already made it clear you have never studied economics in an academic setting which means you do not really know anything about the subject just like I do 't know astrophysics because I did not study it.
Why would I waste my time reading posts from someone who starts out antagonistic and shows no understanding of the subject or its history?
Yeah, consequences like FDR getting elected President four times in a row. That was the last time the Democrats had a popular President.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but America’s ability to do much of anything is being dismantled before our eyes. The Democrats played it safe, so voters looked elsewhere.
60 years of unbelievable productivity gains and new technologies, and life has only gotten harder. I think we could do better than that. Bullshit excuses are easy to accept when it hasn’t hit you yet.
This isn’t “bullshit excuses” as you are focusing on the potential political gains and I am talking about the economic problems that could come about from sweeping economic changes.
When the New Deal passed the USA was a larger portion of the world economy and it was growing.
It’s absolutely bullshit. Most of what progressives want is stuff we had 50 years ago. The boldest new proposal is Medicare for All. Somehow every single other developed economy in the world can achieve universal healthcare, but the richest country in the world can’t manage it? BULLSHIT! While you wrong your hands people are dying and lives are being ruined every single day. It’s profane, and it’s pathetic. Yes, we can do a hell of a lot better.
I don’t think you are following this thread at all.
Large sweeping economic changes are usually bad. Medicare for all wouldn’t be a sweeping change unless we immediately banned all private insurances which M4A would not do. M4A would be increasing the efficiency of the American economy which is what economists want.
Large sweeping economic changes would be things like adding $5 to the federal minimum wage all at once. The economy would likely grow from an incremental move that added $5 over the course of a few years but spiking it hard and fast will kill a lot of businesses that would have been fine with $1/yr over 5 years. It does not help to increase the minimum wage if it causes rapid widespread unemployment (note: I am absolutely not arguing against a minimum wage increase just against a rapid shift).
And, where in the thread again was an instantaneous $5.00 raise to the minimum wage mentioned? Alluded to? Implied?
You are absolutely right, I’m not following the thread. I’m following the discussion, but the thread is a figment of your imagination, and I don’t know how to do that.
We were talking about whether large sweeping economic changes are a bad idea and whether incremental changes are better. You were arguing against that and I used minimum wage as an example.
Im tired of explaining things to you, so let’s stop here.
Let me try to explain something to you. “Large” is not a fixed concept, it’s a relative measure. Can you point to me where any bill or proposal for increasing the minimum wage has proposed doing it overnight? They always get phased in, even in the most progressive proposals. When you say “large”, or even “large sweeping”, no body is going to presume that you are jumping to something that far out of scope.