Economic thought Vs Economic Doctrine. A must read.

Discussion in 'Economics' started by jueco2005, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. The 20th century experienced an explosion in the field of economics. Soon there would be so much variety and contradictions in the field of economics that it is much easier for a Chinese & Russian to understand each other than 2 economists from different schools. Everyone rushed to write what economics really is in stone. And why not??? Society was transformed in the 20th century like never before.

    - Massive population growth.
    - World Wars.
    - Bigger government everywhere.
    - The rise of Communism.
    - Clashes of cultures & empires.
    - Huge advances in Technology.

    Soon the world became a smaller and more complex place.

    Communism in order to survive needed to rewrite everything about human psychology, history, religion & others. Only to be achieved by quick and effective indoctrination.

    Non-communist countries, faced with the spread of communism, found themselves in a war of ideas and soon formed their own many economic doctrines. It was under this time that most our current most influential economists gained name.

    “Don’t forget that only in economics have two guys won the novel prize for saying opposing theories”

    Communism died over 20 years ago and still we can’t unhook ourselves from the old thinking of indoctrinating everything.


    “The study of economics was born under the fact that nothing is free.” Everything there is has a cost and in order to get something you or someone must pay for it.

    But why end the story there…………?????????

    We are human beings. Since the beginning of humanity we live in society/groups/tribes you name it. In other words, we restrict some of our liberties so that we can be better off in groups.

    The group itself becomes an institution and must be sustained; in other to be sustained it must be paid for and provided for by its members.

    “The field of Economics has been the most abused and adulterated science” Wanna know why?? FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    Human development can’t occur without the umbrella of the group. If you think otherwise, please go get professional help.

    - What to produce?
    - For whom to produce it?
    - How to produce it?

    We forgot to add 3 more economic questions.

    “Group vs. Individual”
    “Group vs Group”
    “Individual vs. Individual”

    Im so sick of the left & right. Conservative vs. Liberal. Socialist vs. Capitalist. Milton vs. Keynes. Gold vs. Paper.

    Instead of helping us answer our real problems they take us to endless debates & confrontations.

    Most of our problems today come from the idea of what we must pay as a whole. Not everything paid is the form of currency.

    We do not call socialism to have the best armed forces under a huge military industrial complex. Instead we call it “Protecting Freedom” But we choose to call communism the idea of having the best public health care & educational system. Go figure.


    There is no Capitalism or Socialism. No left or Right. Only “Control”.

    Perhaps we might be able to think better when we realize this. The truth for the moment is that we are all slaves.
  2. achilles28


    To give us a better idea where you're going here, can you answer those six questions?
  3. the united states still pays to maintain 3 way to destroy the old soviet union at huge expense. we have land based heavy bombers. submarine based missiles and land based icbm missiles. why is it impossible to ever eliminate a program when its time is done?
  4. piezoe


    Possibly because those who benefit financially from these programs are able to influence the political process to a greater extent then those who don't financially benefit. Money buys more than just yachts.
  5. Society answer those 6 questions in the Market place, Politics, Laws, Wars, name it.

    Blame the "truth holders". They claim to be the ones to answer most of them.
  6. I'm not sure i follow your post you seem to confuse political systems communism, socialism with economic thought. Economics is the study of how to organize society to produce the most wealth.

    Classical economic thought was developed by British thinkers thomas malthus, david ricardo, and adam smith.The heart of this ideology was the theory of comparative advantage which states that a nation or region should stick to what it's good at and not try to compete were another may have a temporary advantage. And this would produce the most wealth. It is not by accident that this theory was founded entirely by the British who had the most industrialize economy in that period. Of course it's only natural for the most industrialized nations to popularize economic thought that basically said we can produce better and cheaper then you so don't try to industrialize. . This kept other nations from trying to put up tariffs,while trying to develop competing industries, which allowed Britain to dump cheap imports below the cost of production to destroy industries in infancy (Industry needed long term capitol commitments and time to develop). While on the surface it seems that comparative advantage makes logical sense it was merly a way ( just like it is used today)for rich nations to keep poor nations from mechanizing and remain a raw material provider to the rich nations.

    classical economics also thought that lowering the cost of goods to their cost of production would create the most wealth. This included driving labor down to it's subsistence level ( the cost to live). Of course they admittingly not able to reconcile that if wages were at subsistence levels. who would buy the production.

    Although Marx name is often used by the right every time the government steps in.Marx basically thought that classical economics that leaves labor with a subsistence life will lead to an uprising and be replaced with socialism so why not do it now.

    Both of these schools of economic thought didn't understand were wealth came from. Both thought that since the earth resources were finite then so is wealth. They also believed that wealth was a zero some game. A struggle for a finite amount of wealth between the capitalists and labor.

    Not knowing to many is what is called the lost science of political economy or the American system. Even after the revolution America was still a economic colony of the British. That is until thinkers like henry clay, friedrick list, peshine smith, mathew carey,and others broke free from economic thought of old. Identifying that even though resources are finite man's ability to use these resources is endless. America instituted state collages for advancement in agriculture, chemistry and so on. As a result of education and tariffs to protect new industries America out mechanized the British. Friedrick list brought this doctrine to Germany instituting MIT type collages across Germany which lead to the fastest growing economy the world has seen. Mathew Carey thought it was silly to not peruse textile manufacturing simply because the Brits had a head start an thus a momentary advantage. America ended up developing it's own textile industry that was able to compete with British textiles.

    Milton Friedman took free markets to the extreme using false assumptions and child like circular logic. Markets should be left alone because markets are the best at maximize utility and how do we know this, because individuals always act rational (false assumption) and how do we know this, because individuals are always maximizing their utility. This became popular because it gave an idealog that doesn't require any thought or empirical evidence just clever slogans and assumptions.


    Assuming that the financial industry would regulate itself, as Greenspan thought, assumed that upper management actually cared about long term survival of their institution. This is the hypocrisy of Friedmanites. Upper management would be maximizing their utility by extracting money in the short term, yet for some reason they would have the company and financial system's best interest in mind. Other friedmanites argued that seat belt laws increased deaths by making the driver feel safe enough to take more risk. (Even after car deaths went down) Other friedmanites argue that people who commit suicide are maximizing their utility (personal gain) and how do we know this, well because the core of our theory tells us that individuals always maximize their utility. Obviously Freidmanites are more of a cult then an economic discipline and should not be taken seriously.
  7. I disagree. Although my approach was entirely about economics, Political systems are part of economic thought.

    Economics is not the study of how to organize society to produce the most wealth.

    Economics is the study of how "a society is organized to produce the most wealth". This brings a unique form of economic for every nation, culture, religion, race, geographic location and so on.

    Please read my post again. My analysis is oriented on and after the events in the 20th century.
  8. jprad


    Maybe it's because it's time isn't "done," yet...

    Russia, the "old" Soviet Union has, by several estimates, more nuclear warheads in service today than the U.S. has. Worse when you take chemical and biological WMD's into account.

    IMHO, as much as I dislike the policies coming out of Washington, I trust them a hell of a lot more than I'll ever trust anything coming out of Moscow.

    Or Beijing for that matter...
  9. I think a state cannot productively govern more than 2 million citizens.
    Time to decentralize the World into Cantons as in Switzerland for better governance.
  10. jprad


    Personally, I trust the US & NATO a hell of a lot more than anything you have to say.

    The reality is that of those 800 worldwide "installations," there are only 5 countries with US military personnel in excess of 10,000: Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a whopping 7 other countries with troops greater than 1,000.

    In other words, 80% of the US military is deployed within the US and its territories.

    As far as military expenditures go, yes, in real dollars the total cost has gone up. But, if you normalize them to inflation or as a percentage of GDP, it has gone down every decade since the 1950's.
    #10     Apr 1, 2011