12 ms·

I like the saying, the economy does not need economist, just like evolution does not need biologists. The things we talk about today are not really that diffre

by nickik 14y ago

I like the saying, the economy does not need economist, just like evolution does not need biologists. The things we talk about today are not really that diffrent from what Adam Smith argued for/against a couple hundert years ago. Today you have people like Stigliz arguing against markets with much more sophisticated models then the people that argued against Adam Smith. The people that argue against Stigliz use much better models too. So where does that leave us? I conclude that we should let the market be the market and not try to influence it, its a far more complex thing then economist understand. Trying to influence in to one direction will probebly just cause ten more things that are unexpected. The market is not perfect, not even close, read Stigliz as a good example of this but I highly doute that the goverment can improve the end result in most cases. If you look at the pridictions of TOP economist at every time X, the are almost always wrong and you get some other people that get it right, these people are then wrong the next time. I barly trust the goverment to do the easy things write, tweek a huge economy is far from easy.

rayiner 14y ago
I agree we shouldn't try to tweek the economy with government, but the corrolary to this is that we shouldn't then raise up economic arguments to keep the government from solving real problems. Also, the knee-jerk cynicism about the effectiveness of government is misplaced. E.g. government funds about 1/3 of all R&D in this country (and it was as high as 2/3 in 1964). It is definitely not the least productive third of the R&D expenditures. We crow about all these advances in medical technology, etc, but many of those advances are the direct result of enormous NIH funding. Our world-leading universities get well over half their R&D funding from the government.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  but the corrolary [sic] to this is that we shouldn't then raise up economic arguments to keep the government from solving real problems. I disagree: The economic argument against price controls is a very good one, and it's completely valid and useful to raise against the idea when governments try to use them to "solve real problems".
  - nickik 14y ago
    Its kind of funny how even the few say 99% of economist agree on get disregared in politics. Sure price controls are not that common anymore but once a storm comes they are back. Ifs funny as economist would argue that, especially in situation like that a flexible price system is imprtend. Seams to me the goverment does what it does and if the can find economist that agree with them then they are just happe they can clame that 'economist' agree with what there doing. They are not actually listening to them.
- nickik 14y ago
  I agree that goverment funding things can be effective. I have more of a problem with direct muddling like saving firm A or B, implementing ristrictions on trade, telling people what they can buy and what they cant buy. These things do not have to be discarded because of econmic reasing, these things have to be discard since the are plainly just goverment helping some people on the cost of others or just restring what people would want to do and are rational enougth to do. I have some things I want to add to what you said. First and most importend is that you dont know what would have been devloped if people where taxed X% less instead of the goverment investing it. Second I think meassure what R&D is in a economy is very hard to say. Many thing just get evolutionarly better and that does not have to happen in R&D. Third I would say that goverment funding universitys and things like that is something diffrent from a goverment burocracy. The universitys have other insentive to prudce good results, so do the comanys competing for grants. So I do think that goverment spending on reasearch is one of the best things goverments does.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Third I would say that goverment funding universitys and things like that is something diffrent from a goverment burocracy. Most of the size and scope of at least the federal government is things like this, not bureaucracy. The federal civilian payroll has held steady at 1.8-2.2 million since 1960, and payroll expenses account for less than 5% of the budget.
    - nickik 14y ago
      The cost of bureaucracy is not just payroll.
dllthomas 14y ago
This argument applies equally well to most things. Defending a country is a hugely complicated mess, and moving battleships over here is going to have ramifications over there. Policing society is difficult and complicated - we try to cut down on crime by targeting something over here, and it causes problems over there. Clearly, we should call the whole thing off, and allow international affairs and society take care of themselves - all the way through invasions and murder? Evolution doesn't need biologists, but people who need to make decisions dealing with the consequences of evolution on epidemiology sure do!
- nickik 14y ago
  > This argument applies equally well to most things. Well you uncoverd the reason to why I belive, what I belive. > Evolution doesn't need biologists, but people who need to make decisions dealing with the consequences of evolution on epidemiology sure do! I agree but the question is not if we plan and make dicisions, the question is who makes the plan and dicisions for who. > Defending a country is a hugely complicated mess, and moving battleships over here is going to have ramifications over there. Policing society is difficult and complicated - we try to cut down on crime by targeting something over here, and it causes problems over there. > Clearly, we should call the whole thing off, and allow international affairs and society take care of themselves - all the way through invasions and murder? Well I actually agree that we should let society take care of that (Not trolling I actually agree). The most broken down version of such a, for a advanced economy would be this (20 min video): How to provide law and police without state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o And a more practical discussion about order without goverment you can get here (lecture): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pNrtgioFs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pNrtgioFs0 Stats of Anarchy (or self goverments) or something close to it is one of the hot subjects in development economics. About half of the world stats are failed or almost failed states, these are states that do not have the power to efficently do what a policy and law system would do in a first world country. So there most be something else going on, why do the work as well as they do and people are not killing each other all the time. This paper was quite influential: "Assume Anarchy? Why an Orthodox Economic Model May Not Be the Best Guide for Policy." Raghuram Rajan (Director of the IMF’s Research Department) Im not saying that I can prove that the institutonal structure discribed in the videos above (and the reaseach of all the people) would work they way I would want it to but I do think it has potential to improve on democracy.

by nickik 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

I agree we shouldn't try to tweek the economy with government, but the corrolary to this is that we shouldn't then raise up economic arguments to keep the government from solving real problems. Also, the knee-jerk cynicism about the effectiveness of government is misplaced. E.g. government funds about 1/3 of all R&D in this country (and it was as high as 2/3 in 1964). It is definitely not the least productive third of the R&D expenditures. We crow about all these advances in medical technology, etc, but many of those advances are the direct result of enormous NIH funding. Our world-leading universities get well over half their R&D funding from the government.

twoodfin 14y ago
but the corrolary [sic] to this is that we shouldn't then raise up economic arguments to keep the government from solving real problems. I disagree: The economic argument against price controls is a very good one, and it's completely valid and useful to raise against the idea when governments try to use them to "solve real problems".
- nickik 14y ago
  Its kind of funny how even the few say 99% of economist agree on get disregared in politics. Sure price controls are not that common anymore but once a storm comes they are back. Ifs funny as economist would argue that, especially in situation like that a flexible price system is imprtend. Seams to me the goverment does what it does and if the can find economist that agree with them then they are just happe they can clame that 'economist' agree with what there doing. They are not actually listening to them.
nickik 14y ago
I agree that goverment funding things can be effective. I have more of a problem with direct muddling like saving firm A or B, implementing ristrictions on trade, telling people what they can buy and what they cant buy. These things do not have to be discarded because of econmic reasing, these things have to be discard since the are plainly just goverment helping some people on the cost of others or just restring what people would want to do and are rational enougth to do. I have some things I want to add to what you said. First and most importend is that you dont know what would have been devloped if people where taxed X% less instead of the goverment investing it. Second I think meassure what R&D is in a economy is very hard to say. Many thing just get evolutionarly better and that does not have to happen in R&D. Third I would say that goverment funding universitys and things like that is something diffrent from a goverment burocracy. The universitys have other insentive to prudce good results, so do the comanys competing for grants. So I do think that goverment spending on reasearch is one of the best things goverments does.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Third I would say that goverment funding universitys and things like that is something diffrent from a goverment burocracy. Most of the size and scope of at least the federal government is things like this, not bureaucracy. The federal civilian payroll has held steady at 1.8-2.2 million since 1960, and payroll expenses account for less than 5% of the budget.
  - nickik 14y ago
    The cost of bureaucracy is not just payroll.

dllthomas 14y ago

This argument applies equally well to most things. Defending a country is a hugely complicated mess, and moving battleships over here is going to have ramifications over there. Policing society is difficult and complicated - we try to cut down on crime by targeting something over here, and it causes problems over there. Clearly, we should call the whole thing off, and allow international affairs and society take care of themselves - all the way through invasions and murder? Evolution doesn't need biologists, but people who need to make decisions dealing with the consequences of evolution on epidemiology sure do!

nickik 14y ago
> This argument applies equally well to most things. Well you uncoverd the reason to why I belive, what I belive. > Evolution doesn't need biologists, but people who need to make decisions dealing with the consequences of evolution on epidemiology sure do! I agree but the question is not if we plan and make dicisions, the question is who makes the plan and dicisions for who. > Defending a country is a hugely complicated mess, and moving battleships over here is going to have ramifications over there. Policing society is difficult and complicated - we try to cut down on crime by targeting something over here, and it causes problems over there. > Clearly, we should call the whole thing off, and allow international affairs and society take care of themselves - all the way through invasions and murder? Well I actually agree that we should let society take care of that (Not trolling I actually agree). The most broken down version of such a, for a advanced economy would be this (20 min video): How to provide law and police without state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o And a more practical discussion about order without goverment you can get here (lecture): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pNrtgioFs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pNrtgioFs0 Stats of Anarchy (or self goverments) or something close to it is one of the hot subjects in development economics. About half of the world stats are failed or almost failed states, these are states that do not have the power to efficently do what a policy and law system would do in a first world country. So there most be something else going on, why do the work as well as they do and people are not killing each other all the time. This paper was quite influential: "Assume Anarchy? Why an Orthodox Economic Model May Not Be the Best Guide for Policy." Raghuram Rajan (Director of the IMF’s Research Department) Im not saying that I can prove that the institutonal structure discribed in the videos above (and the reaseach of all the people) would work they way I would want it to but I do think it has potential to improve on democracy.