Why have pretty much all major works on economics in 2018 been leftist(-ish)?

>Because people are starting to realize that economic systems of any sort will not work if they are controlled by people who hate them.
Businessman supporting leftists is a thing since Engels.

"""leftists"""" like Clinton I suppose

COOPERATION! is the spirit of the age. Capitalism has a problem? Then global cooperation must be the solution, because cooperation. And how do we cooperate: through big government.

Today is all about "managing" things. To manage something as big as an economy, you need lots of people - a big state!

all halfway decent leftists in 2018 support decentralized, universal, lean solutions like cooperatives & UBI-derivatives

Mr. Israel, what economic system do you support for the people of Israel?

And then what economic system of judeo capitalism do you support for the rest of the world?

FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM

Should you succeed in economically crippling the nations of the goyim, I just want you to know that there will be millions like me who will stop at nothing to make sure Israel pays for the evil you have brought to the world.

Revenge is best served with nuclear weapons.

Theres a huge incentive for 'capitalists' to destroy the companies they helm for short term profits.

Look at sears for example.

They tend to support big global pacts, treaties and so on for making everything uniform, from what I've seen.

The Picketty sort of leftist

>Free Market
>Corporations
You should really learn the bases of economics before you criticize it dumb ass.

Wealth disparity has grown too large.

that's where the money is at....omg idiot.

Attached: 1516084456379.jpg (864x864, 131K)

>. In reality instead of competing huge corporations merge to fuck you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Why don't you read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics you have no idea how to properly think about economics.

>Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics you have no idea how to properly think about economics
"beware the man of one book"...
Sowell is a hack and his (and the rest of the Austrian/Chicago schools ideological spinsters') just-so stories about laissez faire markets are completely divorced from lived human reality and empirical data.

You know, like the reality describes. The last few decades saw the rise of quasi-monopolistic "superstar firms". It doesn't matter what your precious neoclassical theories tell you if the actual real world disagrees with them.

Keynesian facts don't care about your liberg feelings.

Power, not money, is the leftist end game

Incidentally, neoclassical "mainstream" economics' biggest flaw is their blindness to issues of power.

so what's going to happen with the US's public debt? My friend who studied economics says it doesn't matter, but I'm skeptical that you can keep piling up debt without it coming back to bite you in the ass. How do you maintain pensions and benefits when it seems they require ever larger numbers of tax payers to pay for them?

>I'm skeptical that you can keep piling up debt without it coming back to bite you in the ass
"Trends that can't continue forever, won't."

Government debt isn't anything like household debt. The USA government can never actually go bankrupt. For one, such an even would be so destructive that the Fed would never ever allow it (up to and including debt monetization aka "printing money").

Government spending also acts as a money multiplier. Every dollar the government spends grows the economy by that dollar+some%. This growth can then effectively be taxed, which leads to lower overall debt/GDP ratio. It's how most developed economies reduced their real debt back in the postwar boom.
The inverse is also true - government austerity (of the type shilled by Republicans and UK Tories and Israel's Yesh Atid) is a TERRIBLE way of decreasing the debt/GDP ratio because. See also: the Paradox of Thrift.

The only real danger is hyperinflation, but "standard" wage inflation hasn't really been a thing since the 1980's. Workers' bargaining power is simply too low. The economy (and by extension, government spending) is only really limited by its own potential (inb4 no such thing). We are very far from actually hitting that limit, of course. Most western economies have been suffering from an aggregate demand deficit for many decades, and true economic "overheating" hasn't been a thing in over 40 years.

It's also important to note that long-term government bonds had until a couple of years ago effectively zero or even negative real yields. Anyone who shilled for austerity before ~2015 was literally sabotaging his nation's economy and should be hanged for treason.

Attached: us-debt1900-2015.jpg (772x508, 38K)

>Government debt isn't anything like household debt. The USA government can never actually go bankrupt.
Right, I understand this, I more concerned about inflation (or hyperinflation), or what happens if the USD loses it's status as the number one reserve currency. In that event, wouldn't it lose value? How can the US economy continue to function if the USD loses value. I'm not well versed in economics, I've been listening/ reading Sowell and while he makes some good points, he does seem idealistic. I at least think many of his political views are sound such as his ideas on the flaws of social justice. What do you think about his claim that welfare subsidizes dysfunctional models of living?

>Government spending also acts as a money multiplier. Every dollar the government spends grows the economy by that dollar+some%.
Could you explain this further? Even if it lowers debt/ GDP ratio, wouldn't inflation result?

>Israel's Yesh Atid
I heard Likud is the future of Israel based on demographics and voting trends, thoughts?

>Workers' bargaining power is simply too low.
I don't see what the answer to this is, it seems to me that most workers are becoming more and more obsolete. Is the demand deficit one of the reasons many countries are seeking to import more and more immigrants?

>Where have the hordes of free-market Friedmanists go?
Jow Forums ran off all the libertarians so you don't hear about them anymore. Maybe check out mises.org or something.

>US's public debt
Kek another retard meme. The main ones are: >MUH NATIONAL DEBT
>MUH HYPERINFLATION
>GOOOOOOOOOOOLD
While boomers were doing that silly shit Xers bought apple and amzon stocks and made a fortune.

So much for supposedly jewish libertarianism

Why is it retarded though? I'm looking to learn

Would never happen.

There isn't a currency in the world that comes close to replacing the USD as the global reserve currency.

To be the global reserve currency, there are a certain set of objectives that you need, like the government needs to have a rule of law, property rights, not care about where the day to day value of the currency is, volume, etc etc.

Nothing comes close to having all those things.

The euro won't exist in 15 years
Yuan is manipulated by the Chinese
GBP doesn't have the volume
After that, its the Canadian dollar.

Okay, those points make sense. How is this influenced by what currencies other countries choose to trade in? What if China stops manipulating the RMB?

Curious to see why you think the Euro won't exist in 15 years.

They are out there, just the media pays them no lip service because it's not promoting socialism

Attached: IMG_4611.jpg (1445x2202, 407K)

As far as China, because there isn't any reason for them to be the world currency reserve according to their current political model

They are essentially fascism. Private ownership/government direction kind of business model. No intellectual property rights, no open trade, government subsidised loans for everybody, which is actually them pumping enormous amounts of capital into their system. They are essentially running an obama stimulus package every 2 weeks.

They are 100% (not literally, but he entire model is centered around this) reliant on exports and must keep their currency at a certain level to keep competitiveness.

They're facing a myriad of problems

Here's a nice summary:
youtu.be/AtwFmyZcZKI

this is like 10 years old

In the words of John McDonnell:
>An economy “with its own currency” may never “run out of money”: but that money can become entirely worthless.

There are obviously real physical limits to government deficit spending. If the government cranks out money faster than the economy can grow (or be taxed), the debt/GDP ratio would, by definition, increase. The point here isn't that public debt literally doesn't matter, the point is that developed economies have been suffering from a demand deficit and a large potential gap for many years, and governments have a lot of maneuvering room in their fiscal policy before they hit a real limit. Even more important is the fact that governments that DON'T make use of this maneuvering room are sabotaging their own economies in a display of pure counter-productivity.

I brought out the "Trends that can't continue forever, won't." quote for a reason. GDP/ratio can't keep climbing up to infinity. It will be quashed long before that by either inflation or real growth (or, as happened in the 1950's-1970's, both).

>I'm not well versed in economics
Me neither. I just like reading economics blogs and follow econotwitter and I've read like 3 books on the subject (my favorite was Debunking Economics which was pure kino and I think the ultimate anti-Sowell redpill)

>What do you think about his claim that welfare subsidizes dysfunctional models of living?
I think welfare doesn't "subsidize" anything except the economy as a whole. Welfare is an effective automatic stabilizer - it's what prevents economic recessions from turning into deep depressions. Whatever else, it's much more effective as a money multiplier than tax cuts for the rich.
I also don't believe the idea that economics is all about "incentives" and that welfare produces the "wrong" incentives. Nobody actually ENJOYS being poor and be given a handout. For every highly-publicized story about a duplicitous welfare queen mooching off hardworking taxpayers, there are hundreds if not thousands of folk who are doing their best but still come off short (probably because the economy has failed them).

>Could you explain this further?
When the government spends money, that money doesn't simply "vanishes". It's used to pay workers who then use it to buy products whose producers then use it to pay workers who then use it to buy products etc. etc. This overall increase in business activity in the economy shores up capitalists' confidence and profits and (in an optimal world where rentiers have been euthanized) results in higher business investment, which means higher productivity, which means higher overall GDP.
This isn't something unique to government spending. Literally any spending does this. The government is simply in a very good position to do it because its impact is both large and universal, while its spending decisions are (in an optimal world) political, not financial.

>I heard Likud is the future of Israel based on demographics and voting trends, thoughts?
Don't really care.

>workers are becoming more and more obsolete
Secular stagnation and "structural unemployment" are spooks deployed by right-wing ideologues to excuse for the poor performance of contemporary capitalism. Remember Obama's "skill gap"?

>Is the demand deficit one of the reasons many countries are seeking to import more and more immigrants?
Yes.

>freakonomics

Attached: 1409137313507.jpg (720x540, 81K)

So, would someone recommend me a book with some good critique of capitalism? Currently reading Friedman and Sowell. I can't seem to find a good reason capitalism should not be our economic system, would love to see some good arguments from the other side.

Yeah, there's a reason for that.....

>these books are products for sale
Criticizing capitalism while also participating in it seems hypocritical.

Also, I've been reading the drafts of various chapters of Economics in Two Lessons.
It's really really REALLY good and, like Keen's book, seems to be very grounded in actual real-life reality instead of the abstract theories of most economists.
It's also perfectly anti-ideological, regularly shitting on both the rent-control left and let-them-eat-vouchers right.
It will be released in 2019 and I know I'll buy it ASAP.

Attached: 9780691154947.png (311x480, 237K)

...

because left and right are outdated models.

in the Before-Trump era, we had the worst of liberalism (poz, open borders, idpol) with the worst of conservatism (interventionism, corporate welfare, defense of monopolies).

now we're starting to come to a consensus on reasonable positions: protect our borders, don't teach kids about trannies, protect our foreign interests with the minimal force required, citizens' wellbeing takes precedence over "principles" that protect multinational megacorps. Trailblazers like Tucker Carlson are really driving that last point home. We can win over reasonable liberals if we're willing to be more reasonable on stupid shit like corporate welfare. These companies are inhuman, they're certainly not conservative.

That's what I figured.

I don't want to strawmen those on the other side, however. I've read some Marx to try to understand, but it seems more sentimental than logical (perhaps Capital is different). What can be said of Chomsky, Richard Wolff, etc.? I honestly haven't bothered to read them yet, but I know it's who those against capitalism tend to refer to.

>I've read some Marx to try to understand
>perhaps Capital is different

Attached: 1375743631169.jpg (293x310, 34K)

Haven't read them either, but given the default nature of man is capitalism (starting from the barter system), there's no reason that a properly* regulated capitalism is not the best method to go about things

* properly is subject to interpertation

>the default nature of man is capitalism (starting from the barter system),
false

There is zero danger of hyperinflation for the USA. Hyperinflation normally happens when a government suddenly loses the ability to keep the currency's real value above its market value. That can't happen with the USA because the market sets the dollar's real value.

It is also possible for hyperinflation to occur where the country has excessive foreign currency debts, or where the taxation system is broken (like Weimar) or where the country is blockaded (like the Confederate States of America). But none of those problems are relevant to present day USA.

The USA's reserve currency status used to be very valuable, but now financial markets are more sophisticated, it's trivial. Losing it may result in a one off drop in value of up to 5%, but beyond that there'd be no lasting effects.

No generation has an obligation to reduce government debt - it can keep increasing for ever. However, it is sensible for governments to fly to run surpluses in boom years in order to keep interest rates down.

>>false
actually false.