-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Ask an Economist (Post #1005 and counting)
- Thread starter JerichoHill
- Start date
- Status
CCA
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,449
You're missing out.
EDIT: Anyway, In your opinion does Marxian/Marxist Economics still hold any relevance whatsoever today?
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
It has just about as much relevance as classical economics. Good to know for history, bupkis in practice today.
There is no major, renowned university in the world today that does more than pay lip service to marxian economics with a class (often as an economic history class). I think Maine may have a certification in it. I forget.
Marx's Das Kapital was written, well, parts 2 and 3, but someone not Marx (I forget who). I do know that Part 1 which Marx wrote and Part 3 had incompatible price theories. There are a whole other slew of problems assorted with Marxian economics. Defenders (of which there are few) claim that the criticisms have to do with the wrong interpretation of Marx's thoughts. I personally believe that if one is defending a claim, and most everyone interprets that claim one way, but the defender claims something else, either the defender cannot adequately express himself or does not know what it is he is talking about.
Marx's influence over the political landscape, and what governments do today has had lasting influence, but his mathematical theory on economics, not so much.
There is no major, renowned university in the world today that does more than pay lip service to marxian economics with a class (often as an economic history class). I think Maine may have a certification in it. I forget.
Marx's Das Kapital was written, well, parts 2 and 3, but someone not Marx (I forget who). I do know that Part 1 which Marx wrote and Part 3 had incompatible price theories. There are a whole other slew of problems assorted with Marxian economics. Defenders (of which there are few) claim that the criticisms have to do with the wrong interpretation of Marx's thoughts. I personally believe that if one is defending a claim, and most everyone interprets that claim one way, but the defender claims something else, either the defender cannot adequately express himself or does not know what it is he is talking about.
Marx's influence over the political landscape, and what governments do today has had lasting influence, but his mathematical theory on economics, not so much.
Norseone
Emperor
I'm curious, this may be a stupid question, but how long do you think it will take for China's economy to overtake the USA's as the biggest in the world? I have heard that for some measurements (PPP) it is expected to Happen in 2010.
And, what are the consequences of this? Obviously it will lead to a multi-polar world, but will this have any bad consequences for an American citizen say (in your opinion)?
And, what are the consequences of this? Obviously it will lead to a multi-polar world, but will this have any bad consequences for an American citizen say (in your opinion)?
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Supposedly, if one extrapolates, within 50 years, dependent on your extrapolation.
I despise extrapolation. One has to rely on a slew of assumptions. Its akin to predicting the exact temperature, dew point, humidity, and whether or not Al Gore is sweating.
It won't be by 2010. That's pretty much granted. China has a long way to go.
As for consequences, expect more anti-globalization posts, more pseudo-protectionism, military posturing, and a whole lot of nothing. Did the world change drastically when the seat of power went from London to New York? Is it going to change when the seat of power is shared between a few places? Not really.
I dont think for the average joe that shift is going to mean a whole lot.
I despise extrapolation. One has to rely on a slew of assumptions. Its akin to predicting the exact temperature, dew point, humidity, and whether or not Al Gore is sweating.
It won't be by 2010. That's pretty much granted. China has a long way to go.
As for consequences, expect more anti-globalization posts, more pseudo-protectionism, military posturing, and a whole lot of nothing. Did the world change drastically when the seat of power went from London to New York? Is it going to change when the seat of power is shared between a few places? Not really.
I dont think for the average joe that shift is going to mean a whole lot.
At least if you change "drastically" to something less dramatic ("significantly"? "noticeably"?), seems to me like that's a fair question. I mean, I guess I can understand an economist answering that with a blasé "not really," but surely a historian would disagree. Then again, historians are usually more concerned with powerful people and less concerned with the average Joe than economists are, so I'm not sure what to think.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I know its not going to really affect me. Personally it feels like alot of hullabaloney. There are incentives in place, so if China becomes the largest economy its not going to run roughshod. The US didn't.
In other news, it appears I'm getting promoted.
In other news, it appears I'm getting promoted.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I just read up on that statistic thats about china surpassing the us in ppp by 2010. Its actually a statistics thats been calculated using a basket of good or something from 1980, and is horribly outdated.
In actuality, its been figured out that gdp has been overcalculated for china anyways, so theyre alot smaller than folks thought (compared to the us) because of the misuse of statistics.
hooray for statistics!
In actuality, its been figured out that gdp has been overcalculated for china anyways, so theyre alot smaller than folks thought (compared to the us) because of the misuse of statistics.
hooray for statistics!
93.6% of statistics are complete crap. Seriously.
Spoiler :
Murky
Deity
So what would happen to the economy if everyone stopped borrowing money?
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
More interesting - what would happen to the average American if they couldn't borrow money? Say we leave an exception for real property.
-- Ravensfire
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Borrowing is neither good nor bad. In fact, the ability to borrow (think, credit/atm cards) is good because it increases fluidity and liquidity in the market allowing transactions to happen. That encourages economic growth.
If you couldn't borrow money, you'd have to save and save to buy a home, rather than mortgaging one. An absolute stop on borrowing would cripple the world economy.
But again, by itself, borrowing is a tool, a medium. It is neither good nor bad. We need alot more descriptives to know whether or not specific acts are bad
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Your answer in this scenario could be explained by asking a question.
How many Americans live paycheck to paycheck?
Murky
Deity
What do you think of the concept of "Money as Debt' and that in the long term such a economic system is not sustainable?
Video: Money as Debt
Video: Money as Debt
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Murky, the video is 47 minutes long. I don't have time to watch it. If you watched it, what its point?
I am inherently suspicious of any videos on youtube or google video on any topics such as these. I can't find any information about the guy who did it other than its related to the American Monetary Act, which is related to Anti-War groups and the American Monetary Institute. I can't find any serious discussion in reputable journals on it.
On the AMI I find
"The American Monetary Institute believes that social reforms can be made to "stick" only if accompanied by the necessary monetary system reforms. That means taking control over the monetary system out of private hands and placing it into the US Treasury. It means money issued by government interest free and spent into circulation to promote the general welfare. It means substantial expenditures on infrastructure, including human infrastructure - education and health care, as the preferred method of putting new money into circulation."
I do not know what the first prong means. I know the second prong is economically horrific (there are only rare circumstances where Int-Free loans encourage economic growth, and they are most definitely NOT in developde countries, and the third prong sounds far too political.
The world isn't going back to a gold standard. The US Dollar is not about to collapse. Compared to other periods within my lifetime, this inflationary period isn't so bad.
It is highly expected that a government carry debt, just a a person carries debt (say, for their home). What we hope is that the debt is being retired in step with new debt being brought in.
I am inherently suspicious of any videos on youtube or google video on any topics such as these. I can't find any information about the guy who did it other than its related to the American Monetary Act, which is related to Anti-War groups and the American Monetary Institute. I can't find any serious discussion in reputable journals on it.
On the AMI I find
"The American Monetary Institute believes that social reforms can be made to "stick" only if accompanied by the necessary monetary system reforms. That means taking control over the monetary system out of private hands and placing it into the US Treasury. It means money issued by government interest free and spent into circulation to promote the general welfare. It means substantial expenditures on infrastructure, including human infrastructure - education and health care, as the preferred method of putting new money into circulation."
I do not know what the first prong means. I know the second prong is economically horrific (there are only rare circumstances where Int-Free loans encourage economic growth, and they are most definitely NOT in developde countries, and the third prong sounds far too political.
The world isn't going back to a gold standard. The US Dollar is not about to collapse. Compared to other periods within my lifetime, this inflationary period isn't so bad.
It is highly expected that a government carry debt, just a a person carries debt (say, for their home). What we hope is that the debt is being retired in step with new debt being brought in.
Murky
Deity
I'm somewhat skeptical of the video too. It seems to be stating that a debt driving economy ultimately results in collapse because all the wealth ends up in the vaults of the lenders. In order to keep the system going you have to keep feeding the greedy debt monster. Eventually, the world's resources are used up because of everyone using more resources to pay the interest on debt. It also talks about how making money off of money used to be considered a sin and was banned by the Catholic Church. The video reaches that conclusion that in order to avoid financial and environmental catastrophe we must return a simpler way of life. Instead of having a borrow lots of money and consume everything society, we would have sustainable eco-friendly society.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Ah, thanks for the summary.
Then I would consider the movie bunk. Not all debt is bad. Not all debt is slavery, or whatever.
=)
Then I would consider the movie bunk. Not all debt is bad. Not all debt is slavery, or whatever.
=)
Murky
Deity
If you get the chance you might still wish to view it. Some of it's talking points made sense to me. An economist might be able to point out what it gets right and what it gets wrong.
I thought you supported Ron Paul. Was I mistaken? Or do you just disagree with him on this issue?
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I disagree with a lot of libertarians on this issue. I think the appeal has something to do with wax nostalgia, infomercial gurus, and the extrapolation by folks who've only have Econ 101a.
I do support Ron Paul, mainly because he's actually a fiscal conservation. Doesn't mean I believe 100% of the things he believes. I doubt any supporter of any candidate agrees 100% with the candidate on anything.
I do support Ron Paul, mainly because he's actually a fiscal conservation. Doesn't mean I believe 100% of the things he believes. I doubt any supporter of any candidate agrees 100% with the candidate on anything.
- Status
