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.
No they aren't. There isn't a real world example of this being true.
Not for economic darwinists for whom there are numbers, and only numbers, no.
For systems involving people who have varying and collective needs not addressed by raw economic trickle-down, yes. But of course the're not worth mentioning when it cuts into profits.
Not for economic darwinists for whom there are numbers, and only numbers, no.
For systems involving people who have varying and collective needs not addressed by raw economic trickle-down, yes.
No distribution system is more fair and balanced than the invisible hand. Everything else is distribution at the expense of some group. Politics is what determines what group gets screwed.
Nope. You are one of two classes of poster, neither of which I care to engage and which mods dislike being called out by name.
Stick to your Smithist/Darwinian econ and save us all the tiresome quips from its pages; we've all been listening to it for quite a long time from those it serves.
...which is the problem; Econ is a horseturd school of thought by business/the wealthy, for business/the wealthy and serving the prejudices and conceived needs of business/the wealthy. It has no room nor consideration for anyone who isn't basically wealthy in some form; everyone else is lumped into utilitarian service classes. Your "invisible hand" moves all the pieces around in a grand scheme interpreted by high priests, themselves members of the elite (says right there)... and if some large number of utilitarian drones get crushed in those movements, oh well, it's all part of the Plan.
Which is why I openly despise and reject modern economic consensus and even more so those who smugly quote it like religious dogma: if we haven't evolved to a level where flow of wealth and prosperity considers all individuals as "part of the Plan" then it's because we have too many wealthy Neandertals. The vague assertion that it's a level playing field and anyone can become part of the wealthy is not true, has never been true and in recent decades has barreled down a track towards never will be true.
But by all means, hang around and keep making smug economic darwinist pronouncements, since like most of the wealthy you aren't quite sentient enough to see beyond the catechism.
Your "invisible hand" moves all the pieces around in a grand scheme interpreted by high priests, themselves members of the elite
Nope. That's not at all how the invisible hand works. Otherwise the "high priests" could charge $52 for a roll of single ply toilet paper (which by the way is the going price in demand side theory paradises like Venezuela).
You should really read a few classical economics books before you "trash" the subject matter.
Quote:
Which is why I openly despise and reject modern economic consensus and even more so those who smugly quote it like religious dogma
You can't reject something you don't understand, not without valid criticism anyway.
...Econ is a horseturd school of thought by business/the wealthy, for business/the wealthy and serving the prejudices and conceived needs of business/the wealthy. It has no room nor consideration for anyone who isn't basically wealthy in some form; everyone else is lumped into utilitarian service classes. Your "invisible hand" moves all the pieces around in a grand scheme interpreted by high priests, themselves members of the elite (says right there)... and if some large number of utilitarian drones get crushed in those movements, oh well, it's all part of the Plan.
Any set of observations, when extrapolated too far, and codified as unassailable doctrine, risks becoming quadruped manure. But that's more the fault of the promulgators of the theory - or if you will, the "priests" - than of the theory itself.
It doesn't require much broadmindedness to observe, that conventional Western capitalism leaves many needs untended, while focusing on phony "needs"; there are real, pervasive and quite vile injustices, not merely theoretically possible, but actually encountered in practice. And yet, when considering any alternative, we must ask ourselves: "what are the side-effects"? Will this new theory work, once actually implemented? Is it not possible - nay, likely! - that by trying to fix these injustices, we create new ones, worse than the former? This, I think, is the reason why so many embrace conventional economics. It's not that it leads to policies that work smashingly well, but that we fear that alternatives would be even worse.
"[there is] evidence that extreme wealth has a corrosive effect on the economy. Wealth inequality places immense resources in the hands of people unable to spend it productively, and keeps it out of the hands of those who would put it to use instantly..."
This is exactly what I posted earlier... that the global savings glut, where ultra-wealthy individuals and institutions have mountains of excess cash sitting idle and doing nothing, is grossly unproductive. We need a wealth tax to siphon up dead cash to put it to productive use.
Why not tax a billionaire? If someone has $2 billion, and taxes knocks it down to $1.5 billion, will he or she even notice? Their lifestyle won't change, they can still buy whatever they want and have every need fulfilled.
If I had two billion and the government decided to implement a wealth tax of 25% I’d be moving to a different country with that two billion.
The country would lose in the long run with that two billion gone. That would be gone, my yearly earnings would be gone, any jobs I provide gone and the tax revenue as a result of those, etc.
This, I think, is the reason why so many embrace conventional economics. It's not that it leads to policies that work smashingly well, but that we fear that alternatives would be even worse.
Has anyone in this thread proposed alternatives? I have yet to read anyone making an honest attempt to do so.
Any set of observations, when extrapolated too far, and codified as unassailable doctrine, risks becoming quadruped manure. But that's more the fault of the promulgators of the theory - or if you will, the "priests" - than of the theory itself.
But that's really the point - that it's theory, and the system is highly malleable, and what are portentously pronounced as laws of nature are simply constructed maxims that work as a set. There is next to nothing stopping us from changing the entire theory set to something that will work just as well, both prescriptively and descriptively... it simply may not benefit those who constructed the current set of CandyLand rules as well.
An economic system for the 21st century and beyond has to have a moral center and an ethical compass, and not simply rig the game so that those with wealth easily collect more wealth at the expense of what are now marginalized bloc players.
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.
