Elitist view or rational thing?

Just wanted to propose a question . . .
In the wake of the big economic recession, almost everyone has become an economist overnight and I can't go anywhere without hearing about why the stimulus bill isn't working or when employment will pick back up again. Normally, I love it when people talk to me about these things, but the truth is, I can't take it anymore. I'm currently an economic grad student, and if things go according to plan, I'll be getting my Ph.D in about 2 more years, and from that point of view, all these people who just read internet blogs are CLUELESS. Then it struck me, if most people don't really understand the economy (it took me 4 years of undergrad and will take at least 5 more years), then theres a pretty solid chance nobody in DC does either.
So, the question is . . . should we leave the economy to the economists (trust me, I'm painfully aware that little group of pretentious a-holes can't agree on anything), or do we let everyone have a say, regardless of qualifications?

I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

And the Keynesians lol.

And if memory serves...the vast majority of the so called "economists" have more to do with academic theory than they do with actual management of the economey to begin with.

if you're implying that my years of hand on study of the economy, former economic systems, ect. mean nothing, you are sadly mistaken. theres more to it than theory, its cause and effect,much of which is not theory, but as factual as you can get

Yet doesnt negate the fact that the vast majority of those in the field of study in question will never get to actually control the economy that they so diligently studied all those years.

Which means they spend lots of time on theory as opposed to actual manipulation of the system.

And I wasn't "implying" anything, just stating my opinion based upon my observations.

good, no real economist wants to control it anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

---

For one thing, people toss around the word 'economy' like they are talking about something as casual as the size of their favorite coffee mug. When I was in college (1970's) in an economics class an assignment I will never forget is that we were to break down the cost of a loaf of bread. REALLY break it down. You know, all the way back to the cost of growing, harvesting and shipping the wheat to processing it to shipping that, etc., and then on to the other ingredients. Follow that through all the steps until you are finally in line with your bread at the store, pay for it, and it is in your kitchen. After all that, you barely get a glimpse of what the economy is all about.

Side note: with this health care 'reform' package, just how is fining us for not having insurance going to get us any closer to having insurance? We make too much for government hand-outs (which we wouldn't take, anyway) but there isn't enough left over to buy insurance. THAT is going to hurt the local economy because instead of spending money on a dentist exam every 6 months, it will now be done every year or two. Just for background before anyone thinks we can cut out our frills, we DON'T have: cable or satellite TV, cell phones, high-speed internet (we have free 56K dial-up), go bowling, take lavish vacations, eat at fancy restaurants, drive new cars, or anything else frilly.

The government spending all of this 'stimulus' money is just a feel-good measure in many instances. Many localities were given stimulus funds for more police officers or special school programs. Well, in case after case, the recipients used those funds to hire the officers or implement the programs, but when the funds dried up, the officers were let go and the programs dropped. What kind of fool thinks that if the localities couldn't afford those items before the stimulus funds, why would they afford them afterwords? It may look good at some press conference, but the reality of it is that if the local taxpayer (in Montana the locals pay for a lot of this stuff) couldn't handle those items before, and if there isn't some HUGE surge in the local job market with large wage increases, the items get dropped.

I better quit, I get to rambling too much!

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

---

:hubbahubb I think I just fell in love. ;)

i dont think anybody would say the market is free at all

The "Market" has never really been free...and I doubt it ever will, to have that you need to have zero interference and or control from governmental sources.

I love Milton Friedman when it comes to a lot of things, but, his ideals, though they look good in "theory" imho are no more realistic in practical aplication than comunisium turned out to be and it looked great in theory too.

A lack of general knowledge coupled with a lack of ethics when it comes to business, (especially corperations) investment speculation, and a variety of other things; a ...not a so called "free market", is the real crux of the problem.

a lack of ethics doesnt make the market less free, it can affect the market, but it will not make it any less free, same with investment speculation. If you stop either of those things, the market is not free
remember, greed makes the world go round

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

---

The federal government regulated the life out of the free market. THAT contributed greatly to this subprime mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tedteague

i dont think anybody would say the market is free at all

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

The "Market" has never really been free....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

The federal government regulated the life out of the free market. THAT contributed greatly to this subprime mess.

---

I often avoid even reading threads like this because I get to angry, but I feel compelled to say: among the things I trust least in this world is Big Business running rampant sans regulation. Disagreeing with the (i.m.h.o.) self-centered, free market dogma may lead to me being labeled a socialist, but hey - I'm jiggy w'it.

without regulations, those big businesses you hate so much (citigroup, AIG JPMoragn, Goldman Sachs) would have all gone out of business and filed bankruptcy. Regulations gave them billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep operating

Apparently the great sate of Louisiana has figured that out. Unemployment there is apparently the lowest in the nation, currently around 7%. And a whole bunch of things associated with small government. Not that they are but they are acting like one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

---

Some say Government handouts are not so much about helping people as it is making people dependent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oww-that-hurt

For one thing, people toss around the word 'economy' like they are talking about something as casual as the size of their favorite coffee mug. When I was in college (1970's) in an economics class an assignment I will never forget is that we were to break down the cost of a loaf of bread. REALLY break it down. You know, all the way back to the cost of growing, harvesting and shipping the wheat to processing it to shipping that, etc., and then on to the other ingredients. Follow that through all the steps until you are finally in line with your bread at the store, pay for it, and it is in your kitchen. After all that, you barely get a glimpse of what the economy is all about.

Side note: with this health care 'reform' package, just how is fining us for not having insurance going to get us any closer to having insurance? We make too much for government hand-outs (which we wouldn't take, anyway) but there isn't enough left over to buy insurance. THAT is going to hurt the local economy because instead of spending money on a dentist exam every 6 months, it will now be done every year or two. Just for background before anyone thinks we can cut out our frills, we DON'T have: cable or satellite TV, cell phones, high-speed internet (we have free 56K dial-up), go bowling, take lavish vacations, eat at fancy restaurants, drive new cars, or anything else frilly.

The government spending all of this 'stimulus' money is just a feel-good measure in many instances. Many localities were given stimulus funds for more police officers or special school programs. Well, in case after case, the recipients used those funds to hire the officers or implement the programs, but when the funds dried up, the officers were let go and the programs dropped. What kind of fool thinks that if the localities couldn't afford those items before the stimulus funds, why would they afford them afterwords? It may look good at some press conference, but the reality of it is that if the local taxpayer (in Montana the locals pay for a lot of this stuff) couldn't handle those items before, and if there isn't some HUGE surge in the local job market with large wage increases, the items get dropped.

I better quit, I get to rambling too much!

---

No! At least not with out a push!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

---

Milton Friedman himself said that a free market would require someone to own the air and enforce their rights to it in order to properly charge externalities like pollution. Of course this means someone is fully justified in charging people for breathing and if they don't pay while then the owner just makes them stop breathing, a simple enforcement of property rights.

So the free market quickly becomes the radically corrupt police state.

I'm glad it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Apparently the great sate of Louisiana has figured that out. Unemployment there is apparently the lowest in the nation, currently around 7%. And a whole bunch of things associated with small government. Not that they are but they are acting like one.

---

Well among other factors in that low unemployment rate, was a natural disaster leading to population loss through both casualities and massive emigration to other states, followed by significant money put into the city of New Orleans resulting in a massive inflow of construction jobs.

So I suspect a lot of that low rate relates to federal "big government" too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tedteague

Just wanted to propose a question . . .
In the wake of the big economic recession, almost everyone has become an economist overnight and I can't go anywhere without hearing about why the stimulus bill isn't working or when employment will pick back up again. Normally, I love it when people talk to me about these things, but the truth is, I can't take it anymore. I'm currently an economic grad student, and if things go according to plan, I'll be getting my Ph.D in about 2 more years, and from that point of view, all these people who just read internet blogs are CLUELESS. Then it struck me, if most people don't really understand the economy (it took me 4 years of undergrad and will take at least 5 more years), then theres a pretty solid chance nobody in DC does either.
So, the question is . . . should we leave the economy to the economists (trust me, I'm painfully aware that little group of pretentious a-holes can't agree on anything), or do we let everyone have a say, regardless of qualifications?

---

I guess you answered your own question when you said economics wasn't about controlling the economy.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter, but that doesn't mean something else is better. Replacing the right to free speech by a right to free speech when talking about something about which you are qualified to speech sounds pretty terrible. You might be able to have a conversation about economics, but god forbid you want to comment on the quality of a movie without your PhD in an appropriate arts field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tedteague

without regulations, those big businesses you hate so much (citigroup, AIG JPMoragn, Goldman Sachs) would have all gone out of business and filed bankruptcy. Regulations gave them billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep operating

---

Dude - did I ever once use the word "hate"?

Did I - even once - voice support for the stimulus? (Something Wall Street was more than happy to claim as their due (despite the reek of socialism born of a taxpayer bailout) with it's former Wall Street fat cat heading up the Congressional advisory.) If corporations truly operated according to the rules of their precious free-market, they'd have been left hanging bare-assed in the breeze (as deserved) for running themselves into the ground.

Aaaaand stick a fork in me, 'cause I've more than had my fill of this thread.

That sounds silly!

Until I remember that the EPA is regulating CO2. So there is you ownership of air and breathing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Milton Friedman himself said that a free market would require someone to own the air and enforce their rights to it in order to properly charge externalities like pollution. Of course this means someone is fully justified in charging people for breathing and if they don't pay while then the owner just makes them stop breathing, a simple enforcement of property rights.

So the free market quickly becomes the radically corrupt police state.

I'm glad it doesn't exist.

---

The comment was not derived from a readable source but an interview of the Governor of the state. He did say that New Orleans is thriving!

You really mean to say that 30% of the populatin of the state of Louisiana just up and left the state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Well among other factors in that low unemployment rate, was a natural disaster leading to population loss through both casualities and massive emigration to other states, followed by significant money put into the city of New Orleans resulting in a massive inflow of construction jobs.

So I suspect a lot of that low rate relates to federal "big government" too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tedteague

remember, greed makes the world go round

---

But it doesnt HAVE to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_moirae

I often avoid even reading threads like this because I get to angry, but I feel compelled to say: among the things I trust least in this world is Big Business running rampant sans regulation. Disagreeing with the (i.m.h.o.) self-centered, free market dogma may lead to me being labeled a socialist, but hey - I'm jiggy w'it.

---

I am right there with you when it comes to mistrusting what has proven over time to be perhaps the single greatest evil unleashed upon the world in recorded history.

The Institution of the Corperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

You really mean to say that 30% of the populatin of the state of Louisiana just up and left the state?

---

You should have been living in Atlanta and other cities here in the south,when we got overran by all of the people flooding into the city looking for places to live and work in the months after the storm.

Most of the people I spoke to had no intention of ever returning to their former homes eaither.

Which btw has nothing to do really with weather or not the economey or discussion of it should be left to the economists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

But it doesnt HAVE to.

---

But what else has worked even half as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

But it doesnt HAVE to.

---

Like many things greed has varying shades. A person experiencing greed that goes out and robs a bank either has a bad form of greed or a poor moral set.
A person that experiences greed and creates something to sell either has a good form of greed or a well formed moral set.

Reading over that it appears that the issue is not "greed" but the person's morals.

A corollary to "greed" is that we all seek to make things better for our kids. That can not be considered bad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I am right there with you when it comes to mistrusting what has proven over time to be perhaps the single greatest evil unleashed upon the world in recorded history.

The Institution of the Corperation.

---

Why are corporations "evil"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Why are corporations "evil"?

---

It's quite obvious, really. They provide consumers with things that they really want, at prices which most of them can afford, all while providing jobs and benefits to their workers. And to top it off, they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit!

How evil can they get?

The also pollute the enviroment, exploit their workers, and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really safe or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption or even useful to consumers in general...all without any apparent concern unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

The also pollute the enviroment, exploit their workers, and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really safe or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption or even useful to consumers in general...all without any apparent concern unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

---

Are we talking about corporations, or governments? From your description I can't really tell the difference.

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. ~Marie Beyle

Yet in the end..once they are of no other use to the shepherd...are not the sheep then led to slaughter.

To me the corperation is like a faceless shepherd only his sole consern is in how much profit he will make out of us sheep and how fast he can make it.


As for whose opinions matter when it comes to economics (or anything else)...which btw is the topic of the thread as presented by the op:

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

To me the corperation is like a faceless shepherd only his sole consern is in how much profit he will make out of us sheep and how fast he can make it.

---

So who knows more about the economics of shepherding, the sheep or the shepherd? And who is more guilty, the shepherd who tends his flock, feeds them and protects them? Or the people who buy their wool, and their meat? And if no one is buying the wool or meat, of what use is the shepherd, or the sheep?

Quote:

---

As for whose opinions matter when it comes to economics (or anything else)...which btw is the topic of the thread as presented by the op
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius

---

Which is a very good reason to trust the economics of the country to those who actually know something of economics, and not to men and women whose only understanding of money is how to raise enough of it to be reelected.

Or steal enough of it right out from under everyones noses, or in plain sight and get away with it?

well personally, i find shaws better than hunter-gathering or growing my own wheatfield and praying the harvest is bountiful.
Corporations do not twist the arms of the people who buy its products, and to say they exploit their workers is too general a statement.
Would you rather have no industry, no cars, probably electricity or running water?
Or would you rather have corporations?

We had all those wonderful things before corperations came to any kind of surpremacy in the market.

You're right, we did have cars. except nobody could afford them until Henry Ford made them so cheap most Americans could buy them. You wouldn't have a laptop, no internet, or even power without General Electric. Even if you did have a car that was horribly overpriced because it was made by hand, what would you put in it? No corporations to import gas means no importing gas. And as for pollution, everybody pollutes. It is not just the corporations. The standard of living we enjoy today is the product of corporations. Big ones that make tons of money

Ford made them cheap, Ford..an individual in charge of a business that he owned in his own right...long before the corperation that his company turned into rose to surpremacy or shed its liability for any wrong doings in the light of the law in conjucntion with all the other big companies over the government.