4 ms·

With the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913, establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, expansion of the interstate commerce clause in Wickard vs. Filburn

With the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913, establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, expansion of the interstate commerce clause in Wickard vs. Filburn in 1942, and Roosevelt's Social Security and other New Deal programs in the 1930s. After these, a lot of power shifted from the people to the federal government. And then the government needed economists to tell them how to use this new power. And because there are dozens of federal agencies employing economists, they're never going to say "We shouldn't be here at all" but rather "Let's hold back a little bit on using our power here". They're going to adjust their message so that politicians are more likely to appoint them to positions of power. Academia isn't any better: They crucially depend on government money, and the effort is always on more government influence(and money) even if a few professors write theoretical books saying otherwise. In finance, I believe economics is still useful since you can make measurable predictions, and execute trades and deals off of them. But, economists at finance companies aren't nearly as noticeable as economists in the government and academia. If you completely cut those items in the first paragraph, it would become nothing more than a moderately useful branch of philosophy.

matt4077 10y ago
> After these, a lot of power shifted from the people to the federal government. That's the fault in this line of reasoning: the people never had the economic powers of a government. Government derives its power from being the solution to a collective action problem. Or, in other words, the people gained power by pooling their decision making process.
- pmyteh 10y ago
  To be fair, government is one possible solution to a collective action problem. There are other possible solutions involving various kinds of voluntary cooperation. It just turns out that some collective action problems (such as the existence of child labour, for example) are much easier to solve by a body with coercive power than one without. But you're quite right that the notion that 'the people' once had such power before being oppressed by the creation of collective government is an ahistorical idea, normally deriving from dubious state-of-nature theories.
  - kazagistar 10y ago
    "Property" itself cannot exist without involuntary coercion. Cooperative collective action resulting in some form of free market solutions cannot function without a base layer of coersion, which is then implicitly supporting the collection action, rendering them no longer truly purely cooperative.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      That base layer of "involuntary coercion" being "punishing people who steal".
      - kazagistar 10y ago
        "hurting people who take stuff other people are keeping from them" You can spin it all kinds of ways, but the concept steal is not a fundamental one, but one that we invented and enforce through government, through coercive action.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        As opposed to you just coming along and saying you deserve my stuff?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
pmyteh 10y ago
You should be aware that economic regulation by the federal government is way off its peak (which was the various New Deal agencies), despite (and in some cases because of) the existence of government and academic economists. Government prohibition of corporate mergers, for example, has reduced to nearly zero partly due to the influence of academics suggesting the consumer disbenefits of monopoly are lower than thought when the antitrust laws were first enacted.
anigbrowl 10y ago
For heaven's sake, there were economies and debates on the organization thereof long before the United States ever came into existence. Please take off your historical blinkers and read up on some older civilizations - Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, whichever you find interesting. People have been arguing about the appropriate role and scope of the state for thousands of years. Conversing with someone who thinks exclusively in terms of American governance is like trying to discuss landscapes with someone who insists on viewing the world through a cardboard tube.

matt4077 10y ago

> After these, a lot of power shifted from the people to the federal government. That's the fault in this line of reasoning: the people never had the economic powers of a government. Government derives its power from being the solution to a collective action problem. Or, in other words, the people gained power by pooling their decision making process.

pmyteh 10y ago
To be fair, government is one possible solution to a collective action problem. There are other possible solutions involving various kinds of voluntary cooperation. It just turns out that some collective action problems (such as the existence of child labour, for example) are much easier to solve by a body with coercive power than one without. But you're quite right that the notion that 'the people' once had such power before being oppressed by the creation of collective government is an ahistorical idea, normally deriving from dubious state-of-nature theories.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  "Property" itself cannot exist without involuntary coercion. Cooperative collective action resulting in some form of free market solutions cannot function without a base layer of coersion, which is then implicitly supporting the collection action, rendering them no longer truly purely cooperative.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    That base layer of "involuntary coercion" being "punishing people who steal".
    - kazagistar 10y ago
      "hurting people who take stuff other people are keeping from them" You can spin it all kinds of ways, but the concept steal is not a fundamental one, but one that we invented and enforce through government, through coercive action.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        As opposed to you just coming along and saying you deserve my stuff?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

pmyteh 10y ago

You should be aware that economic regulation by the federal government is way off its peak (which was the various New Deal agencies), despite (and in some cases because of) the existence of government and academic economists. Government prohibition of corporate mergers, for example, has reduced to nearly zero partly due to the influence of academics suggesting the consumer disbenefits of monopoly are lower than thought when the antitrust laws were first enacted.

anigbrowl 10y ago

For heaven's sake, there were economies and debates on the organization thereof long before the United States ever came into existence. Please take off your historical blinkers and read up on some older civilizations - Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, whichever you find interesting. People have been arguing about the appropriate role and scope of the state for thousands of years. Conversing with someone who thinks exclusively in terms of American governance is like trying to discuss landscapes with someone who insists on viewing the world through a cardboard tube.