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.
Most economists are sadly very poorly educated, and learn through group think rather than practical application of logic.
They apply correlation to causation when no such thing exists and cherry pick data into oblivion.
Lets get to some basic level structures of the political economy that any one can understand.
They claim growth is good, and there is no alternative to growth. If revenue and capital doesn't appreciate, then poverty and depression are bound to follow. This does not follow logic and suggests there is more at play here, but this is a foundational belief economists follow.
Next they correlate free trade policy to industrialization, digitization, and growth. They use the 19th century British consensus that free trade is good as an example of this policy. Then their colonies were open to commerce from other European nations.
Lastly they point out that poorer nations that open their economy experience more growth, with examples from post communist states.
All these examples involve very little thought and lazy works of conclusion, none of these examples were straightforward examples of free trade versus protectionism, nor do they examine why such policies were promoted, or when they happened.
The Ottoman Empire followed free trade dogma as a root between Europe and Asia along the silk road. As a result their industrial base was never formed, and any minimal investment that went to factory work was bankrupted by foreign competition. Germany, France, and Japan on the other hand use protectionist policy to halt British trade domination, and built out their industrial capacity. World War 1 proved the Ottomans to be antiquated, but that was primarily from their political decisions in the 1700s.
Now if I was a fool I'd say that proves protectionism is good and free trade is bad (like an economist). It doesn't because it proves nothing at all. Free trade and protectionism are just words, and correlating any of these ideas into a spread sheet is foolishness. In fact being a financial capital, London did not have real wealth in the 1700s, nor did Rome in the first century. Concentrating capital that increases in value can show itself as wealth since greater construction are available, but it is more illusory than anything else.
An economist can then say Protectionism is good for industrialization, but then liberating trade once you have a competitive edge equals more wealth.
But again this is foolish, specialization is not a wave that lifts all boats because of equal monetary value, nor is it some magic goose that lays golden eggs.
Most nationalist today argue that there are more important things than growth in revenue, especially if that means giving economic power to overseas investors and global corporations.
But that is a little naive because it assumes neo-classical or Keynesian economists know of what they speak. They are largely clueless, and do understand what economic growth is or why it exists.
The point I'm saying is just because some one has a fancy Phd and advises political committees and government officials does not mean they're smart.
Yet, you cast a broad net calling economists "idiots"? All of them are "so-called experts" right? Just wow! Go back to your ditch digging.
Most economist are, not because of their individual mental capacity, but because of the structure and order of their thinking when it comes to their subject matter:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
A foundation of thinking can be so paradoxical that it is objective in nature.
Ricardo and the rest are good at broad theories but have no practical sense of anything else which hinders the value of any such theory.
In fact economic theory is so broad to encompass human, social, historical, and cultural forces into one measurement scheme that it fails at every level.
Please, just because your economic utopia has been proven false don’t blame it on the science of economics.
Please, just because your economic utopia has been proven false don’t blame it on the science of economics.
Marx was also an economist I believe.
Right now free market dogma is a religion in economic teachings, and has turned human society into a mechanized jungle where life force has been drained from all existence.
Globalism, homogenization, and the destruction of man is what these 'theories' have achieved.
Right now free market dogma is a religion in economic teachings, and has turned human society into a mechanized jungle where life force has been drained from all existence.
Globalism, homogenization, and the destruction of man is what these 'theories' have achieved.
Marx is an economist for slavery.
Are people slaves to you? Are they not free to do what they want?
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.
