Why leftist hate economics so much?

Post Reply New Topic

Hey look! a right wing libertarian, what an oxymoron.

+1

Universal healthcare is the most idiotic thing ever invented for two reason:

1)Liberals don't understand that If something is free people will ABUSE it

people wouldn't care to injury themself or to eat healthy or to drive safely because "well I will get my healthcare yadda-yadda-yadda so i will do everything bad to my body and i will get medical help with someone else money FREE-RIDING"

i don't want my country to become hyper-populated by obese and unhealthy people

2)MORAL QUESTION: Why Should I pay for some lazy ass in the ghetto who can't afford healthcare for himself?

Both liberals and conservative are using the goverment to keep down smart people like me and give MY MONEY to some f*****g losers who is to stupid to provide for himself or his family

Last edited by LibertarianAS on 07 Nov 2010, 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

If they were to the right, there wouldn't be much for them to talk about. These liberal economists talk about nudging people to proper behavior through the tax code and government incentives. A right-wing economics is just deregulate it all; lower taxes; get rid of the Fed; and let the market do its thing.

Basically what the great genius of Adam Smith(the father of classical liberalism aka right-wing libertarianism) fought for

Let's the market do thing,let's the invisible hand kick in,taxes shouldn't exist...the only thing a government must do is protect the life and property of everyone

Adam smith was against any and all government regulation in the economy for a reason: free market ALWAYS allocate the resources better than big government...government never create wealth,never did.....just waste it

Instead Modern liberalism is like a religion....they believe in the dogma of "market failures" and "market doesn't do thing perfect" so they believe in a Big,all-powerfull BIG BROTHER government that regolate every ink of ours life

Last edited by LibertarianAS on 07 Nov 2010, 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Only one problem with that; the politicians will not allow an entirely free market to operate. They insist on getting their cut for the benevolence of not shutting down what IS allowed to work.

ruveyn

because most right-libertarian would be rich without government intervation in favor of the stupid and clueless

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/more_intelligen.html

I'm smarter than 95% of world population,i'm healthy and handsome....what stop me to become rich? one answer: the government

Last edited by LibertarianAS on 07 Nov 2010, 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Because some of them think they can become rich. And those that do not become rich are working at jobs provided by rich people who invest in businesses that produce paying jobs.

ruveyn

Do people go to the doctor for fun? You make it sound as if it's like getting free goodies that people help themselves to always. It's well-known that if you make people pay, they'll avoid going and more people will end up requiring more expensive treatment.

Umm.... no, the Mises institute is the only group without a concern for empirics. There are a number of Austrians engaged in a number of empirical projects. Peter Leeson is known for doing a lot of interesting historical work.

Projection: Are you saying you would abuse it? Also, in countries with universal, single-payer healthcare, it isn't free; it's paid for through taxes.

So you actually think people would just be driving themselves into ditches and playing chicken on the road because of universal healthcare? You don't think most sane people would see risky, painful, and time-consuming surgery as something to be avoided? Where are you getting these assumptions from?

You already live in the United States, so I don't know what you're getting at. Compare our ratio of obese people to "socialist" France, for example.

Universal single-payer healthcare is there when you need it. It is not dependent on your present employment status. What this means is that, for example, during a recession, when you've been laid off and have not yet found a new job, you've got health coverage if you fall ill or get into an accident. What this means is that, if you had an entrepreneurial drive, you could better take the risk of starting a business, knowing healthcare would be covered for you and your family. Single-payer healthcare eliminates the clerical overhead of doctors' offices dealing with myriad insurers; it reduces costs that would have gone into advertising and marketing; and it also reduces costs in CEOs and profit dividends.

You are quite liberal in your use of words like smart. I'd call you an imbecile, but this forum has a policy against ad hominem attacks (name-calling).

What Adam Smith is this? The same one who spoke of the vile maxim of the masters - "All for us and nothing for anyone else".

Please produce a reference for that: book (or letter), date. I want to verify that as a quote from Adam Smith.

Adam Smith was a hard-nose philosopher but he was not vile.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 07 Nov 2010, 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, no, I think the real issue is that both sides talk past each other methodologically. The real case where your claim might be right is the Austrian Business Cycle, but this isn't central to Austrian economic claims. I don't know what else you will cite against Austrian economics though. And, really, it bears a lot of mentioning that Austrian economics is broken out into two basic groups:
The Mises Institute hardliners, who are more politically influential and more influential on the internet.
The integrationists, who do post in mainstream economic journals, and who can be recognized for their abilities, and sometimes lauded.

No, they claim that any attempt at economic science has to be structured differently than the hard-sciences due to the necessity of bringing in basic psychological facts for interpreting human social realities. While, I think it may be true that some have made your claim, Friedrich Hayek has written at length EXPLICITLY against your position, such as in the Counterrevolution of the Sciences.


Well... Austrians have a more complex relationship with the mainstream than that. They aren't mainstream. Most of the Austrians who are though, still recognize other economists as actually economists.


It depends on the Austrian. Many Austrians engage in empirical work. Basically, part of this depends on what is meant by "empirical work'. Austrians reject stronger claims economic prediction for economic explanation, while the neoclassical school upholds prediction strongly with a bad track record for it.

That's actually partially a complaint made by right-wing economists. The focus on policy recommendations undermines the focus on pure economics in their eyes.

That being said, a lot of right-wing economists still believe in monetary policy. Even Austrians have policy recommendations for the fed, based upon their monetary theory, they just think that a world without a fed is a better proposition. (basically, the non-Rothbardian Austrians hold that NGDP stability should be the target of the fed, not a focus on inflation or other things. Rothbardians really can't want anything but the removal of the fed though)

Umm... I think this is a misstatement of Adam Smith. Adam Smith was in favor of a laissez-faire economy on the basis of an "invisible hand". He didn't make the stronger statements you made though, and he is still compatible with a relatively left-wing belief.

That being said.... umm... your political beliefs are actually a religion to you. Period. I mean, I sympathize with your interests. However, you don't really know what you are talking about to any great depth. I'd even doubt that you've read much economics. I mean, market failures, as neoclassical economists do exist, and I don't think anybody denies that. The real issue is relevance, as Austrians hold to a more flexible economy, and correctibility, as many more libertarian economists hold that the government is limited by incentives and information.