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.
I'm interested in discussing a relatively common phenomenon I've noticed in this forum; that of inconsistent, contradictory economic views. I tend to see this a little more among the more conservative posters, though quite a few liberals are also guilty (though, of course, there are posters on all sides of the political spectrum who do not do this!). I myself may, at times, be guilty.
The contradictions of which I speak stem from those individuals who profess a strong belief in, and support for, the private sector, a lack of government intervention and, most importantly, the free market while simultaneously decrying outsourcing and trade with countries like China. You can't have it both ways; if you support the free market then you, by default, have to be ok with outsourcing and trade.
Additionally, many people seem to have a very simplistic view of what the 'free market' is which is rather surprising given how much faith they place in it. They don't seem to understand that this is really just economic theory, that the free market isn't some magical genie that can cure the world's ails if only the government's of the world would leave it be. The idea of the free market is dependent upon a number of assumptions (such as perfect information, fully rational actors and perfectly competitive markets) that actually rarely hold in the real world. Free markets, in reality, are often subject to market failures and market distortions which can only be dealt with by, you guessed it, government intervention. Most any economist will tell you this; governments are required to ensure the proper, or at least better, functioning of the market. Of course, economists disagree on which policies are best and on how much governments should intervene, but almost none will tell you that governments should never get involved.
Furthermore, people often don't seem to understand the importance of economic externalities; costs and benefits that accrue to groups outside of the market proper and/or outside of a particular transaction. Such externalities are extremely common and since they are not captured by the market they are not factored into prices set by supply, demand and trade. Taxes and other market and trade policies are necessary to correct externalities to better reach pareto optimality; free market capitalism actually requires some government intervention and, yes, taxes in order to actually work!
I'm not entirely sure why this phenomenon is so common, though I suspect it is, at least partially, due to people just not knowing enough about economic theory and not having fully formed ideological positions. Thoughts?
Discussion of economic theory is an aquired taste. It's a lot easier to discuss the Cofederate flag or racial posting attacks. Having a position on such things, just doesn't require much in the way of thought.
I'm interested in discussing a relatively common phenomenon I've noticed in this forum; that of inconsistent, contradictory economic views. I tend to see this a little more among the more conservative posters, though quite a few liberals are also guilty (though, of course, there are posters on all sides of the political spectrum who do not do this!). I myself may, at times, be guilty.
The contradictions of which I speak stem from those individuals who profess a strong belief in, and support for, the private sector, a lack of government intervention and, most importantly, the free market while simultaneously decrying outsourcing and trade with countries like China. You can't have it both ways; if you support the free market then you, by default, have to be ok with outsourcing and trade.
Additionally, many people seem to have a very simplistic view of what the 'free market' is which is rather surprising given how much faith they place in it. They don't seem to understand that this is really just economic theory, that the free market isn't some magical genie that can cure the world's ails if only the government's of the world would leave it be. The idea of the free market is dependent upon a number of assumptions (such as perfect information, fully rational actors and perfectly competitive markets) that actually rarely hold in the real world. Free markets, in reality, are often subject to market failures and market distortions which can only be dealt with by, you guessed it, government intervention. Most any economist will tell you this; governments are required to ensure the proper, or at least better, functioning of the market. Of course, economists disagree on which policies are best and on how much governments should intervene, but almost none will tell you that governments should never get involved.
Furthermore, people often don't seem to understand the importance of economic externalities; costs and benefits that accrue to groups outside of the market proper and/or outside of a particular transaction. Such externalities are extremely common and since they are not captured by the market they are not factored into prices set by supply, demand and trade. Taxes and other market and trade policies are necessary to correct externalities to better reach pareto optimality; free market capitalism actually requires some government intervention and, yes, taxes in order to actually work!
I'm not entirely sure why this phenomenon is so common, though I suspect it is, at least partially, due to people just not knowing enough about economic theory and not having fully formed ideological positions. Thoughts?
I am an economics major so I understand what free market, but a lot of posters seem to grasp it. Furthermore for a truly free market you would need to have open borders and let anyone who comes into the USA legal and eligible to work.
Discussion of economic theory is an aquired taste. It's a lot easier to discuss the Cofederate flag or racial posting attacks. Having a position on such things, just doesn't require much in the way of thought.
No kidding; it's really unfortunate because so much of what is argued about in this forum is directly related to this, too. It serves as the foundation of a lot of arguments made by posters on all sides of the political spectrum, yet so few of the posters here actually understand it.
My determination of what the best economic model is like a road.
You have a road that you can drive all over, as fast, or as slow as you'd like. However, what would happen if there were no barriers to the road? People would be crashing into one another, and nothing would work.
You've got to put up road signs, and curbs, to keep the road going in the right direction. The government is there to keep the economy from crashing, but other then that, they should stay out of it.
You all prefer Keynesian economics, neoclassical, or the Austrian school of economics? I lean more to Austrian, but Keynesia is much harder to fully grasp so maybe I am making an uninformed decision.
I am an economics major so I understand what free market, but a lot of posters seem to grasp it. Furthermore for a truly free market you would need to have open borders and let anyone who comes into the USA legal and eligible to work.
What????? Open and free borders? Everyone that comes in becomes legal??? What???? I'm glad you're not in charge of the nation's financial sector. How about grasping the fact of a FREE "AMERICAN" MARKET where the US economy isn't run by the govt but by the people, you know... U.S. CITIZENS???
What????? Open and free borders? Everyone that comes in becomes legal??? What???? I'm glad you're not in charge of the nation's financial sector. How about grasping the fact of a FREE "AMERICAN" MARKET where the US economy isn't run by the govt but by the people, you know... U.S. CITIZENS???
Than its not a free market. And they don't need to be legal , but anyone that wanted would be able to work in the USA under a free market economy. There would be no minimum wage and the new wage would be determined by the market. By restricting the labor supply you restrict the market. I guess you don't support a free market.
BTW, I am not advocating this just pointing something out.
What????? Open and free borders? Everyone that comes in becomes legal??? What???? I'm glad you're not in charge of the nation's financial sector. How about grasping the fact of a FREE "AMERICAN" MARKET where the US economy isn't run by the govt but by the people, you know... U.S. CITIZENS???
I rest my case
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.
