Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me make this clear as a summary. The government doesn't want people to know economics because people would revolt once they know the government corruption. The corporations don't want people to know economics because people would not buy their crap.
This is essentially why financial literacy is not really taught in US schools. And this is why neither party has any interest in truly educated people about economics
Let me make this clear as a summary. The government doesn't want people to know economics because people would revolt once they know the government corruption. The corporations don't want people to know economics because people would not buy their crap.
This is essentially why financial literacy is not really taught in US schools. And this is why neither party has any interest in truly educated people about economics
I'll have to give you credit. Your opinion/theory is clear as a summary. That's about it.
I was reading the wikipedia page about supply side economics and saw this little gem:
Ok, this is a theme I see often when I hear people with left-leaning political views talk about their economic and or political opinions. That they believe them self's to be smarter on the bases that they are more educated. But tell me, how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place? How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place? And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science. It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
I can see you're certainly in need of an education. Your awful grammar aside, education is always a good thing. For instance, someone who has studied economics would be more likely to know what economic policies/agendas have failed and why they failed, leading to educated views on those policies/agendas. Someone who is ignorant of such information but posits economic views that are contrary to what history tells us is good or bad economics is just a worthless economist with no place in the field.
how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place?
Economics is a social science that uses scientific methodology. Words like "correct" and "hard science" are found in discussions among the masses not among professional economists.
Note that of 100 who self-identify as being an economist, only perhaps 3-5 have formal training (undergrad econ does not count), and perhaps one can offer profound wisdom on economic questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place?
There is a method in the madness. Why do you think economics is "an extremely subjective field?" What precisely do you mean? What do you mean by "highly open to interpretation?"
Such assumptions have no basis in economics nor among professional economists.
Smart economists made strong and consistent arguments using the best available theoretical understanding, the most relevant facts, do empirical analyses using proper techniques based on relevant data and then make incredibly precise and humble interpretations.
It is always easy to spot weak or fradulent economists since they do none of the above. Instead, their fuzzy, vague, and inconsistent thoughts are hopelessly overmatched by the complexity of the problems at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science.
It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
This is a good point to make.
Good economists recognize this implicitly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
This is really a separate question. Education is always important in virtually any human activity. Formal schooling is a common and often useful vehicle to deliver that education. But formal schooling is not always guaranteed to deliver the best education nor are those who choose formal schooling the best economists.
Liberal or conservative--most are economic illiterates and most think they are making great sense when in fact they spout out gibberish.
That you think that economics is not complicated makes me think you know less about the subject than you think. Economics is not simple. You are taking for granted that you understand something that I suspect that you don't understand. I took quite a lot of economics and have an MBA in finance, but still I feel that I don't know enough to pass judgement on the actions of the Federal Reserve. For example, the common wisdom was that quantitative easing would very quickly crash the dollar. Instead, the dollar and US bonds are near all-time highs.
And, in terms of difficulty, if it taught right college economics is about on par with college calculus, it is not simple.
Case in point, I remember a lot of "right leaning" economists and politicians shouting doom and gloom stories about how we were going to induce hyperinflation after 2009 with the actions the Fed took in stabilizing the economy.
Everyone knows the right-wing howls of hyperinflation are pure bull****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
I am not a liberal but considering that so many Americans don't understand simple concepts like supply and demand I'd say some formal exposure to economics helps.
I think the average American doesn't understand:
- money supply
- taxation
- "free" government programs
- what "marginal" means
- debt, their own or the national version
Not just average, 99+% of Americans don't understand money supply, taxation, or national debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
It's not just liberals.
The obvious answer is that economics is an academic field of study. It's based on thousands of years worth of validated empirical studies.
You are giving too much credit to economics. Economics is a soft science. Everything in economics comes down to motive..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Your view is a bit too simplistic. Even if a person believes that they want prosperity for the majority of citizens, they differ with you in ways to go about it. In other words, supply side economics is up for interpretation. You will in fact find fewer people who oppose your purpose than people who oppose your method.
Supply Side economics was always a stupid theory.
"If we let rich people have more money, they will 'create jobs' with that money, instead of hoarding it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Let me make this clear as a summary. The government doesn't want people to know economics because people would revolt once they know the government corruption. The corporations don't want people to know economics because people would not buy their crap.
Not the specifically the government; the 1%. The 1% control the government. If you understand how they were economically screwing you, of course you would revolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
This is essentially why financial literacy is not really taught in US schools. And this is why neither party has any interest in truly educated people about economics
Correct. An informed population would not sit idle as the wealth trickles up to the 1%.
"If we let rich people have more money, they will 'create jobs' with that money, instead of hoarding it."
Actually they took it and invested overseas.
It was all brilliantly conceived and executed. Lower taxes. Remove trade barriers. Keep the US$ value high to encourage overseas production and trade deficits. Run high fiscal debt and loosen credit so we can keep consuming more even though wages are falling. Make huge profits. Keep it going until the debt bubbles pop.
3 decades later the top .01% are >500% richer in real terms, while median wages have fallen.
That's supply side for you. It's particularly ludicrous to suggest it now since the rich are already hoarding massive amounts of cash.
Not the specifically the government; the 1%. The 1% control the government. If you understand how they were economically screwing you, of course you would revolt.
I know 1% is a catchy number, but most of the top 1% are pretty average joes who work for a living. They actually didn't fair much better over the last 40 years than anyone else. You need to get up to the .01% level (>$10M/yr) before you see where the real power and wealth lies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
