"The great advances of civilization," wrote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, his influential best seller published in 1962, "whether in architecture or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government." He did not say what he made of the state-sponsored art of Athens's Periclean Age or the Medici family, who, as Europe's dominant bankers but then as Florentine rulers, commissioned and financed so much Renaissance art. Or the Spanish court that gave us Velázquez. Or the many public universities that produced great scientists in our times. Or, even just before Friedman was writing, what could he have made of the Manhattan Project of the US government, which produced the atomic bomb? Or the National Institutes of Health, whose government-supported grants led to many of the most important pharmaceutical breakthroughs?We could perhaps forgive Friedman's ill-informed remarks as a burst of ideological enthusiasm if so many economists and business executives didn't accept this myth as largely true.
I would not be so vocally anti-capitalist, if capitalism had a sound economic theory. Unfortunately capitalism does not have a sound economic theory. The whole theory is built on the assumption of indefinite growth of production, consumption, and trade. This is of course untenable - even in theory. A sound theory would be built on satisying consumer needs (believe it or not, those needs are actually limited) based on the resources available. Even capitalist theory knows that the resources are limited, but they push for unsustainable hypes and hikes anyway because of alleged consumer demand. Naturally the boom is followed by the crash.Another element that always caught my attention in capitalist theory was the mantra "price is information". This basically seems to mean "buy when it's cheap and sell when the price is up". This too is untenable - even in theory. In real economy, price is a contract. The buyer and seller agree on a price. When the price changes, it means that the agreement is off. When the agreement between the buyer and seller is off, there's zero trade, i.e. zero economy. Therefore the sustainable way is to keep prices steady, so that both decent people and capitalists alike will be safe from crashes.
Switzerland, Euro-zone, Japan and some few other examples show that 0 inflation figures does not harm economies. Exactly the opposite, its stabilizes individual savings, consumption, life planning etc.
Economists are the fortunetellers, the charlatans of this globalised society.Like meteorologists, another kind of charlatans, they always know why and how something happened, but they always fail about what's going to happen.
My observation is that money out of nothing is a relatively new idea. Money used to be understood as a measure of value of real-life assets primarily, as in accounting. The theory of monetary eigenvalue used to be secondary. These days it's the other way around. The turning point was, inasmuch as I know the history of world economy and finances, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. This system was undermined by the United States when it ceased to be in their own interests. They didn't like that the system served everybody's interests.
The central statement of the lecture somewhere in the middle, "Economy is a subset of the environment."
Quote from: ersi on 2016-01-28, 18:04:40The central statement of the lecture somewhere in the middle, "Economy is a subset of the environment."Is it? and about bitcoins? and about futures? is it financial gambling a part of environment?
I'm not so sure. But I won't dispute that.
Subset" is something different than "part". "Economy is a subset of the environment" means that economy exists completely thanks to and on the mercy of the environment, like foetus depends on mother.
As I've known for a long time: You don't know what most terms of logic mean! Might I recommend any introductory text in modern elementary (basic, simple; preliminary, required) logic?! To your point that ""Economy is a subset of the environment" means that economy exists completely thanks to and on the mercy of the environment [...]" is merely a notion that your absurd ideology finds comforting...
Are you making a point about logic or ideology? I used to think there was a difference between the two. Teach me.
The idea that "economy" and "ecology" are sets is preposterous...
Let me offer you some new definitions: "Economy" is what people do, in place of warfare... " And "Ecology" is what happens..." I'm sorry to be so blunt; but I'm also sorry you're so obtuse.
Best system of economy - robbing banks.In others words, paying back with love.
If the bank gets bankrupt, it will be bailed out with taxpayer money.
Page created in 0.091 seconds with 42 queries.