Why leftist hate economics so much?

Post Reply New Topic

Which is why it's a useless graph for determining how the federal government spends our tax dollars. It's only useful for people who are trying to mislead others.

Mainstream economics is garbage, especially when it comes to macroeconomic issues...

If there's a recession, depression, or what have you....

"Rightist" economics pretty much says to cut taxes for the rich, and then their extra wealth will somehow magically "trickle down" to the rest of us. That idea is a whole load of crap that's been proven not to work, yet too many people still adhere to this policy anyway...

"Leftist" economics says to take boatloads of government (i.e taxpayer money), and throw it at random things in hope that the economy turns around. Since most people who write these policies don't take into consideration what the money is being spent on, this falls flat on its face as well.

I'd estimate that about 90% of what's taught in Macroeconomics courses at universities is bull****.

Ha Ha. There must be some reason why Atlas Shrugged is still selling 52 years after publication, better even than when Rand was alive. Even the haters and the cowards are promoting the book, while the lovers of it are eating it up. What a fantastic read it is.

Heh Das Kapital is still selling after 143 years.

Yes. but -Atlas Shrugged- is the best selling novel in the U.S.

ruveyn

I thought the best selling fictional work was the Bible.

It is, but it is not a novel.

ruveyn

Correct, it's an anthology.

Atlas Shrugged was a great book, at least back when I was eighteen.

A lifetime of playing the game and winding up the loser has educated me in what it takes to be a non-solitary human. Not that I've graduated yet, but I'm still studying.

What it takes to be a no-solitary human is dedication to some variation of the greatest good for the greatest number concept. Or a properly functioning theory of mind perhaps, I don't know.

No political or economic theory can be examined in isolation.

Whether Keynsian, neo-Keynsian, Austrian or Ricardian, economic theories are merely guides for policy makers--they are not eternal verities and should not be seen as such.

Neither should they be used in isolation from the political environment in which they are sought to be applied. You might well view beneficiaries of entitlement programs to be, "parasites," but these parasites need the same necessities of life as every other person. If they cannot work or if they do not have access to a living wage for their work, then they will turn to other means to ensure access to these necessities of life. It is not by chance that the incidence of property crime increases in direct proportion with barriers to access to entitlement programs.

The Rand-y/Marx-y life topic

It is difficult to talk with someone who is a dyed in the wool Randyite, as it is to speak with a dyed in the wool Marxist. Both proponents are extremists who live at opposite ends of a spectrum, and in doing so, isolate themselvesin a weird sort of paranoia that precludes reasonable self criticism of their own ideas. For this reason their ideasd are thankfully not mainstream or widespread.

Extremists rant, complain, write books of fiction and nonfiction, and above all, blame others for their problems. "If only the parasites would dissappear, then I can be as selfish as I want." On the other hand: "If only all the capitalists would go away, then we would all live in harmony and everyone would own the means of production."

These ideas are not feasible, or only in very limited, and again, isolated ways. Extreme living conditions are always problematic, as partially illustrated by visagrunt.

The problem is that they're both Utopian ideas that go beyond evidence and tend to work to find justifications for the flaws in their systems or imagine solutions that have never shown to be effective previously in real-world applications.

Okay, the argument for the so-called 'Rightist economics' is that when people are able to keep more of their income, they are inclined to spend it on new toys or invest in some new product. Someone has to build said toy (whether it be a new private jet, a new car, etc.), which means employees whom get paid and of course spend money on something else. Which creates a need or want in another area that has to be filled. Contrary to what some people believe, rich people don't just sit there and like to horde cash.



Actually it has been demonstrated as of late that they use it to reward political contributors and further their own agenda. They could care less about the people except for getting the votes to stay in power. At least the Republicans have realized that they screwed up, the Democrats just turn around and call us stupid or racist for kicking them out of office.



I'd say more of about 50% is bull, 20% is theory based on statistics, 10% is failed experience, and 20% is actually from people that know how to succeed in economics...

Unfortunately, the wealthy now create jobs in Indonesia and Mexico with their untaxed incomes, and buy goods from China. American workers never see a penny of it.

Well maybe they wouldn't move everything to those countries if we didn't have the 2nd highest Corporate Taxes in the world. Along with penalties for manufacturing items etc.

Nonsense, corporations don't outsource to avoid taxes, they do so for cheap labor. If by "penalties for manufacturing items etc." you mean more regulation with regards to pollution, then surely you aren't proposing we should allow factories to dump their crap in our water supply, are you? (Not that they don't already )