The ignorance of the of the left when it comes to economics is frightening. There is no chance of having a productive discussion if you don't understand what your opposing. I'm talking basic.
>Supply/Demand
>Subjective Value
>Price, revenue, profit and cost
>Competition
>Dead weight loss
>the pareto principle
These are not hard concepts to grasp. Lefties, explain yourselves.
Other urls found in this thread:
fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com
users.wfu.edu
reality.gn.apc.org
nytimes.com
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
twitter.com
X doesn't work because rich hog all the money and don't help others lol trickle down I win.
I'd genuinely like to hear from some lefties here. Show yourselves.
I am a leftist. Won't call my self a socialist, because I simply don't know enough about the system.
I just finished my MS in economics. Right wingers don't know shit about economics. They know some Economic philosophy memes and some outdated 101 level theory from the 1950s.
>subjective value
>the Pareto principle
Proving my point.
What is your point? You just mentioned two of my bullets points as if I'm supposed to understand your argument.
>MS in economics
I don't believe you but okay.
You're right, but fuck off with your normiebook meme.
More damning is their ignorance of statistics. It really shuts the debate on gun crime, race & IQ , and more.
I agree though. The biggest idiocy is leftist belief of a zero sum game. That Mark zuckerburg creating Facebook in his underwear at Harvard at the age of 19 means some poor person loses. The concept that wealth grows (you know, the basic foundation of economics) goes right over their heads.
>non zero sum game
What do you think the mental block is there? It's a pretty simple concept that otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp.
So, you just implied that subjective value and the Pareto principle are invalid or outdated concepts. Then you claimed have an economics degree without offering any elaboration of your point. Are you just going to leave it at that?
>everyone is dumb besides me
>I won't actually refute anything, but I'll just remind everyone of how smart I am and how stupid you all are
A country that doesnt use a fiat currency neuters itself of power. The economy is a tool of the government, which is theoretically the people. Under an unicultural/uniracial country, taxs are the price to pay to live in the society. Wise spending for needs first and wants second can be achieved with a high iq population. Under these stipulations, a medical care expenditure, workmans comp, tax exemptions for families, tax exemptions for married couples, public lands, other social programs can be provided. This produces a cohesive society that values the nuclear family, community, and hopefully the arts.
It's your thread. What's your point?
>The biggest idiocy is leftist belief of a zero sum game.
>The concept that wealth grows (you know, the basic foundation of economics) goes right over their heads.
Did you miss the scarcity part of economics?
You know the supply part? Where there exist at anyone split second of time a fixed amount of X good?
If there are 100 labor hours available in a community, and zuck purchases 99 of them to build his McMansion. How many labor hours are left for the rest of us?
Tomorrow the supply of labor will increase, because zucks driving up the price, but right now at this very second the supply is limited.
This is literally the most basic application of supply and demand models.
So yeah the economy can in the very short run be considered to behave like a zero sum game.
By nature the left is more emotions based. In particular with economics.Its impossible to dissuade a true collectivist from trying to build their own special millionth peoples commune and think it wont fail.
Loose lending leads to recessions, but the left blames banks in general, after they push for credit expansion. Its always leftist countries that have shortages, people moving out, and or hyper inflation. They like to point to Sweden over Venezuela but dont take into account large amounts of Swedes have been leaving for decades and their competitiveness has declined. Its similar with the North East U.S. citizens have been moving out in droves for decades, and population is kept up with immigration.
Refute what?
OP didn't have a point. The closest thing I could adress would be the "left cant into economics". Which is the only reason I felt the need to introduce myself as left and economically sophisticated.
>What's your point?
Leftist don't understand economics. It's right there in the OP. What worse than that though is that many leftist, for all their ignorance, think they know how to manipulate it to serve their agenda.
>limitation on productivity means economics is zero sum
wtf
All you did is call OP dumb and proclaim yourself as a big brain. You're still doing it. You're pretty insufferable desu senpai.
Economy as a whole is not a zero-sum game.
But economy on micro-economical scale is a zero-sum game because pocket books of corporations and individuals must essentially be balanced in a long run.
Take Facebook for example. Zuckerberg creates Facebook, he receives for example a $1 million dollars in ad revenue and employs himself and 10 people. He pays all those 10 people minimum wage for something like $150k a year total and gets $850k himself or almost 60 times higher than any of his employees. Pocket book of the company is balanced, but his employees must struggle, use food stamps, medicaid, etc. His employees are really bad for his own revenue too, because they can't afford stuff being advertised by those advertisers.
Of course this is a bit oversimplified but that's pretty much how capitalism works nowadays. Companies will pay as low as possible, while pocketing as much as possible for CEOs, political lobbying, etc, even if that behavior destroys the very system that lets them make money.
Then you're just a counter example but like I said I don't believe you actually have an economics degree. You've given me no reason to think so. Either way you've failed to address my point: The left, by and large, is not economically literate.
sometimes im convinced many liberal progressives and leftists today arnt skilled in mathematics, and therefore economics. Im in a double major program, one of my majors is in a sociology based program, we have many of these.
Many of them dont require mathematics, but have a tendency to have more courses on "liberal-progressive" doctrine (gender and sexuality in society, lesbian rights, etc. Most of these students seem to not like math, its just not a requirement for sociology based programs.
That's literally what he was doing!!!
He literally says it himself!
>What's your point?
>Leftist don't understand economics. It's right there in the OP.
He claims to understand Economics. Says everyone should understand these basic concepts.
>These are not hard concepts to grasp.
And then proclaims that lefties can't understand them!
"Me smart u dumb" was literally the point of this thread.
Don't get mad at me for being on topic.
Ever look at the people who go into economic and math classes, you'll have a hard time finding anyone who believes in socialism or communism. I doubt left-leaning individuals have even had education on the topic as an adult.
Do you not understand command/control economics, i.e. leftist economics. That's what OP was talking about, not that he was a real smart guy.
>if I take money from people and give it to someone else I've created wealth
That's leftist economics.
and so you see its interesting because while the sociology based programs which dont require math have this tendency to indoctrinate towards the left, thus encouraging this locking out of intellectual capital necessary to argue about economics, it seems to be only attainable by the very intellectual capital gain through actual merit worthy work. Ultimately today, liberal-progressive sociology based programs are a gimmie, for everyone, everywhere, therefore its nothing special anymore, and you have to work harder to actually be of value in society
You're a leftist because you spent time in university. Earning an ms in economics at a cultural marxist holdout is like being face fucked by stalin.
>The left is economically illiterate
The left has too much money
How many rich conservatives do you see earning millions and are also billionsires. The vast majority are lefties.
Where leftism goes wrong is thst they go overboard they never try to keep the sweet spot which is how you get your venezuelas and shit economies.
The research that supports the ideas that "leftists" believe in is performed by social scientists formally educated in quantitative analysis
I'm not claiming you have to be smart. They are simple concepts and I have observed that leftist tend to be a lot less familiar with them then people on the right. I don't think that is a contentious point but if you'd like to try and refute it, go ahead. The question I have is why.
Your point was presented with no evidence. It's essentially just an unsupported opinion.
I can't disprove an opinion. I am an economist, not a miracle worker.
I already said I don't know much about Leftist economic systems. Suprise Suprise, they don't spend much time talking about it in actual economics courses.
Since all you nigga talking shit I grabbed the closest books spilled around my apartment. And stacked them for your viewing pleasure.
>Paul Krugman
Explains everything. I'm sure you fap to Keynes as well.
What a boring person you must be.
What even is leftism economics for the rich leftists? I think there is a large difference between the bleeding hearts and say the dixiecrats of old. The bleeding heart has no conception of economic feasibility and is feminine in nature appealing to helping those in "need". A dixiecrat would instead oppose immigration and support workers rights while only helping the "little people" or the nonaristocratic american citizen. One is based on emotion and the other is based on the logistics of existing in an industrial society all while trying to maintain a life and family.
Lefties today definitely spend more than they can pay for. They actually benefit from the shitty bleeding heart leftist. But in reality they are huge corperate capitalists.
It's a premise and I can't prove it here, correct. In your opinion then are leftist economically literate on average? If so what makes you think so.
And assuming they're not, why?
Keynes is outdated.
Nobody reads his shit anymore except for completion's sake.
Krugman is possibly the worst political analyst in existence. If he ever says anything outside of his field, do the opposite. But his Econ work is pretty solid.
You might want to actually read some of those. The bindings aren't even cracked. For having taken macroeconomics, that should have actually taught you about left-leaning economic systems.
>Keynes is outdated.
>Krugman is based and redpilled
Leftists on *average* are just as economically literate as conservatives.
The might have a tiny advantage in fact, because more leftists have higher amounts of education which may include economics courses. But I wouldn't bet on it.
IF YOU COME FOR THE KING YOU BETTER NOT MISS
JFC Krugman is a full retard. Don't believe anything he says unless you can prove it with sources that he's unaware of and thus hasn't tainted with his degenerate version of Midas' Touch. (A relatively easy task, tbqh)
At its most basic level, an economy is a cycle of money. People paying earned money to people for transactions with said people paying earned money to people for transactions - ect. It's a catalytic loop, the more money you have flowing through this process almost by necessity implies more people are employed, producing goods, and are consuming.
This is reductionist, but it gets the point across: the more money you have flowing through this cycle the stronger an economy you have. You might then consider who the real drivers of an economy are, and it isn't people who siphon money out of this cycle.
Implying anyone talks about policy in such a short-run environment that it could be considered zero-sum is ridiculous. If you're gunna do the whole 'I have a MS in economics' at least pretend you are smart.
>posts an older article that doesn't even refute the fact
I can keep going.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
Wrapping a box of shit in new paper doesn't change the contents. He embraces Keynes through and through, so idk wtf you on about.
>MS in Economics
>Ivory Tower fag thinks he knows something
kys faggot so we dont have to on dotr
People can disagree with Krugman, but he does have a Nobel in economics. He understands what he is talking about, regardless of whether the conclusions are to Jow Forumss preference.
There is no Nobel Prize in economics. That is a fake prize given out by a bank to make economics feel better about wasting their time on a pseudoscience.
Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. Your argument is invalid.
I'm left because my grand-grandfathers fought for communism, one of them was injured. They wanted to make a better society, where people can live happily without the imperialistic opression.
American education system mate. What can I say?
Maybe I am miss understanding you. I was saying that keynes as an author is outdated, not that Keynesianism is not still alive and kicking.
I already said not to trust him. But the work he won his Nobel prize for is REALLY good. So you gotta give him credit for being a major contributor to his field even if the man attached is insufferable.
Do you see it as a problem? Considering people are going to be voting for policies that effect the economy it concerns me. And the left's tendency to want to make changes to it in an attempt to address inequality concerns me even more.
Yeah okay, so basically you're a leftist. You believe the government spending other people's money creates wealth, which is the fullest of retardation.
>Is it a problem?
Its a flaw of democracy that people without mastery of a subject can vote on issues they know barely understand, but I don't really see a way around this.
> And the left's tendency to want to make changes to it in an attempt to address inequality concerns me
If you don't think income inequality is a problem you don't know shit about economics. The best argument against centrally planned economies is that they place too much power in the hands of a few imperfect individuals.
Income inequality is causing that same problem to arise in capitalism.
Oh, no! It's in memory of Nobel rather than created by Nobel!
The peace prize is the only one that's really bullshit. All the others are based on achievements that involve peer reviewed publications in the field.
In other words, he could explain whatever your position is better than you can.
>They wanted to make a better society, where people can live happily without the imperialistic opression
Yeah, a capitalist society. Free enterprise, free movement, free markets. I thought lefties loved free stuff. You should be all over this.
Nobel prizes for soft sciences are the world's most elaborate version of a participation trophy. Those medals are altogether nonsense, actually. Nobel wanted to buy a better legacy for his name than "merchant of death" so he started giving money to people for things he had no understanding of. They overwhelmingly go to people that gain fame in their field, not for accomplishments. Look this shit up before you keep talking about it.
Eventually this thread is only going to prove that right wing people have as little understanding of economics as left wing people do, generally.
>You believe the government spending other people's money creates wealth, which is the fullest of retardation.
There is no reason why Spending another person's money has a different effect than spending your own money.
If I took all your money and gave it to a 200 IQ hyper entrepreneur on adderal he would probably create more wealth than if I left it in your hands.
You can make many arguments about how governments usually don't spend money optimally, but its not an empirical fact that they don't/can't.
Because in the end Feelings don't care about facts
I believe there are still positions of power within our economy that should not exist. The central bank being a big one, at least in it current form. An unplanned economy allows the most information to flow so people can make decision based on economic realities rather than some state enforced fiction.
> But his Econ work is pretty solid.
Krugman literally said to sell because the economy was going to crash as soon as Trump got elected. A LOT of people missed out on a lot of money because of him.
Meanwhile 60% of economists also predicted that the economy would crash after Trumps election. 60% wrong.
Beyond basic economics, economics in general as a predictive tool is nearly useless.
I can't understand what are you want to say.
The pareto principle?
You’re either going to a college that pulls so much wool over your eyes that the Scots will want to fuck you, or you’re LARPing
The Pareto is literally just an exponential graph and you act like that doesn’t apply to capability turning into wealth. Say your capability allows you to, over a set time, turn $100 into $110, while your friend can do $100 to $111. Simple math reveals that you lose and your slight incapability will show as you age wth your friend.
I’m not even doing the old Austrian School meme of theoretical and not data driven economics, this just makes sense.
>I know what's best for you comrade
You get the fucking rope. That is literal theft, which is the opposite of positive economic activity.
The same principal can be attributed to giving Israel money and saying that they can only spend said money on US products. Sure, the weapons manufacture profited, but the people who got fleeced did not. Essentially government spending is taking resources from people for nothing in return. That isn't trade and nobody is wealthier from it aside from the people who are directly impacted by that supply chain, but it is still a net negative for society. kys
I'm saying communism tends to produce death and suffering, enriching a few at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism tends to produce abundance, wealth, a higher standard of living and life expectancy.
My ancestors had a solid reasons to think other way.
For a 10% it actually produces abundance.
The remaining 90% of the people is kept at bay with minimum wage, which makes them automatically poor.
That's not true though. Look at capitalism in 19th century and before. It enriched a few at expense of everyone else.
Communism turned out to be MUCH worse but capitalism was good in 20th century only because it was tweaked by governments after the WW2 for various reasons. Primary reason being fear of communism revolt.
Nowadays almost all those government regulations are gone and capitalism is devouring itself from inside. If this is not mitigated, there will be a resurgence of worldwide red plague again.
I'm sure they did. How could they have known what would happen? Now we know.
A person making minimum wage in a capitalist country is still better off.
Of course things were rough back then but on the whole things got better. I agree changes need to be made and one of the first ones I'd like to see is restricting the amount of debt governments can hold. Governments that can make debt are like teenage girls with daddy's credit card.
Because "Rightists" dont spend tax payers money. You are fucking poof you fucking leaf.
print more money to increase governemnt company supply to the point demand cant keep up so prices go down then give all the profits to the poor people. no competition because its a sin, rothschilds even said so. i dont know what the pareto principle is because i dont listen to greek philosophers
And we are still praising they for their choice.
From pure economical point of view that's one of the dumbest things you could do.
Government debt is one of the main ways how vast money reserves of banks, both commercial and central, hedge funds, and other huge financial institutions are recirculated into the economy.
Too much debt is bad but the only other way to recirculate money is through inflation and outright money printing. That's even worse than debt.
True. Without the red boogeyman capitalists are retaking their dominance.
You are on average poorer than African niggers. That's quite an achievement of your ancestors.
Blame the capitalist restoration.
>Everyone had nice farming/trade/wares lives in a system of patronage to land owner
>Exotic man.exe
>Decide to trade far off land
>Ok I pay for gaurds
>Ok I pay for insurance
>Ok I pay interest on loan
>Ok I give gold for paper IOU's
>Ok I pay road tax
>Ok I pay income tax
>Ok I pay carbon tax
>Ok I broke now
What is Jew mafiopoly?
Nothing is outwith this system. All variants are sub-systems within this system.
The water comes forth from a spring, does whatever the fuck it's going to do, then return to the ocean.
Money springs forth into existence from a bank, does whatever the fuck it's going to do, taxed like fuck along the way, then back to the ocean loans, taxes etc.
You get to keep a little along the way but it always works it's way back, even if it takes death.
Argue about what colour of ribbon and all the intricacies of the patterns, colours and materials, how it was manufactured and distributed but it's still a piece of shit with a ribbon round it.
I realize that but there are other ways of getting money out of banks. When governments make debt it hides the true cost by deffering payment and spreading it out. You end up holding debt from every generation that came before. That money could be loaned directly to citizens for instance.
You were dirty poor even before capitalist restoration.
Heck, you had regular food shortages in the Soviet Union.
And we were dirty poor even before the USSR. Looks like nothing to lose.
Consumer debt market is quite drastically limited by consumer income. It just can't process all the money sitting in banks and other big financial institutions which they want to turn into safe bonds even with minimal interest.
The situation is especially peculiar for the US. Because the US dollar is the global currency and a lot of dollars are held abroad in banks as currency reserves or even as cash. There is no way to recirculate those reserves into domestic economy without running huge government debt and selling bonds to foreign banks. And there is no way to insert that liquidity into the global trade system anyway without running huge trade deficits too.
Sure but you are in a round about way saying leftists are good at making money. Never mind if they suck alot of corporate dick. Point is from ceo down its filled with leftist cuckery. And i dont see many conservatives with globs of money to spend on political activism like the left does. The conservatives are too busy derping about muh J O B. While lefties are in silicon valley earning millions or billions from floating ipo or vested stock
Its a catch 22 then? Either way the debt can't just grow forever. There has to be a crisis at some point. I don't see how this system can continue the way it is.
I literally had a debate with someone arguing for high-tax healthcare systems like Canada and the Nordic Model the other day and he basically had his argument summed up to this.
Economics is the religion of sociopaths.
What is that supposed to mean?
It's pretty much a catch-22. The whole economy is primary a circulation of money. Debt, taxation, interest, etc are just methods to do that circulation.
In absolute terms debt can grow pretty much forever. Fiat money are a totally virtual concept anyway.
The problem is not absolute amount of public debt. The main indicator is ratio of public debt to GDP and it's not that high in the US. Heck, Japan has ratio three times higher and the economy still works fine. And Japan is not even as globally intervened economy as the US.
The whole obsession with public debt in the US is quite dumb to be honest at this point.
Fucked up as a whole. I don't want to live to work. I want to work to live. It's a pretty huge difference. A pox up your fascism.
NIGGERS MUST DIE
>The Left: The State makes economic decisions for everyone
>The Right: Bankers & Corporations make economic decisions for everyone
I liked it better when everyone got to make decisions for themselves.
Because the system is flawed in how it pays its workers, and the cost of living is fucking ridiculous.
Apart from that, you need regulations on giant companies to keep the economy active. Example, AT&T and T-Mobile could merge together, fire a shitton of people and only a few guys on top would just profit. Any competition would be stomped, and they’d have the advantage forever.
It’s just regulation and fair play, but anytime it’s brought into discussion you scream/spam pictures of fat Tumblrinas and communist.
That's impossible nowadays. Economy is just too complicated now.
This is why only those with understanding of economics (ie. net taxpayers) should be allowed to vote. As an added side effect, this will be the killing blow to the Vaginal Jew.
>I don't want to live to work. I want to work to live.
Then work less and accept lower living standards. Nobody is forcing you to work.
>B-But others should provide my living standards! I'm above working for a living
So you effectively want a slave, dipshit?
Since when being a net taxpayer equals understanding of modern macroeconomics at governmental level?
Almost no one of the ordinary citizens truly understands how modern economy works at large. Small scale economy and large scale economy are running on totally different set of rules and with totally different objectives.
Theory checks out, but in practice Twitter sees this big successful Facebook website and poaches their employees by offering higher wages
Which is just another reason why less regulation and more competition is encouraged
>Since when being a net taxpayer equals understanding of modern macroeconomics at governmental level?
Not at a governmental level, but it does imply understanding of the very basics. Or at the very least understanding that the government's money comes from somewhere and you can't spend money you don't have and get away with it.
Socialism appeals to a small minority of crazed "academics" (read: diversity hires) and a large majority of plebs (mostly women) who just vote for more gibsmedats. It's in their interest to vote for more gibs considering they don't even pay (net) taxes anyway so there's nothing to lose.
>the Pareto principle
The fuck is wrong with this?
So are you arguing that there's such a thing as objective monetary value?
>objective monetary value?
Finite resources can have their value measured objectively e.g. the chemical energy capacity of 50 gigabarrels of oil