Economics for idiots

Originally posted by @finnegan
The phrase applies very nicely to Classical Economics, as illustrated in this quote from 2014, which I have posted before. It mentions a multinational manifesto from economics students in uproar over the poor quality of the economics teaching in even the leading universities, where neoliberal ideology reigns at the expense of any proper academic standards ...[text shortened]... thout looking at costs beyond the basic fees - nearly the same again. That's economics for you.

Whoosh.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Essentially, we're all slaves.

Agreed, but the alternative to the current system is not a loony-leftie-land of freedom, rainbows and unicorns where everyone is equal and earns the same as all their neighbours, everywhere...it's just another system.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Agreed, but the alternative to the current system is not a loony-leftie-land of freedom, rainbows and unicorns where everyone is equal and earns the same as all their neighbours, everywhere...it's just another system.

You are dealing in straw men. Presumaby you find that interesting.

Would it really be too challenging though to deal with reality?

Originally posted by @finnegan
You are dealing in straw men. Presumaby you find that interesting.

Would it really be too challenging though to deal with reality?

Mirror much?
Never methinks.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Mirror much?
Never methinks.

Well when you feel able to have a grown up conversation do get in touch.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Agreed, but the alternative to the current system is not a loony-leftie-land of freedom, rainbows and unicorns where everyone is equal and earns the same as all their neighbours, everywhere...it's just another system.

I'm not picking flowers just yet, but I'm sure the gang of us could come up with an agreeable, humanity-friendly system.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I'm not picking flowers just yet, but I'm sure the gang of us could come up with an agreeable, humanity-friendly system.

"...the alternative to the current system is not a loony-leftie-land of freedom, rainbows and unicorns where everyone is equal and earns the same as all their neighbours, everywhere...it's just another system..."

Heavy sarcasm like that is not evidence of greater insight or wisdom. Sometimes it just indicates some people being dkheads.

I wonder who claims that the alternative to the current system is a loony-leftie-land of freedom, rainbows and unicorns where everyone is equal and earns the same as all their neighbours, everywhere...? Should we ask for a link or a reference to the source of this curiosity?

I wonder which one of the many current systems is intended in the first part of the sentence. Is the author aware of the diverse forms taken by the economies of South Korea, Japan, Brazil, Germany, Norway, Denmark, the USA, the UK .....? All these and more being dramatically different and all being capitalist countries.

I wonder why the sarcastic phrase "..it's just another system" is not instead "... it is indeed another system and it might be interesting to consider what that could look like."

Instead of imagining "another system" to be a fantasy or a utopia or a dystopia, why not consider that of the many systems actually in place and functioning successfully over decades, it might be useful to choose some that are better than others, or some features that are desirable, or eliminating some features that are undesirable?

And besides, is it not worth examining the correlation of different levels of inequality with other social indices, bearing in mind that of all the capitalist countries listed earlier (and all socialist countries you might care to add to the list, if there are any that are not in fact mixed economies) none of them have exactly equal incomes for all, yet levels of inequality are very different between them and the differences are due to policy choices, not the invisible hand of Mystic Meg and her Magic Market?

http://internationalmoneyreform.org/blog/2017/02/global-survey-money-creation/

"A recent survey covering 20 countries concludes that only 20% of the population is aware that money creation is being largely managed by the private banking sector and 13% agrees this should be so. In contrast, nearly 59% would prefer that such a privilege be granted to public institution.
....
A significant proportion of people across the globe (30% ) have no idea who creates most of money in circulation. Half the people think it is a public institution (either a central bank or the government) that creates most of the money in the financial system. Only 1 in 5 respondents gave the right answer, that it is private/commercial banks who create more than 95% of the money.
.....
Most people in the financial sector do not know that private/commercial banks create money

The awareness in the financial sector about who actually creates most of the money is only moderately higher than in the general population. The answers of people who work in the financial sector in Western economies (Europe, USA, Australia, Canada) reveal that only 26% know that private/commercial banks create most of the money in circulation. When asked who should create most of the money the majority (61% ) of financial sector workers also choose a public body and only 16% choose to assign this responsibility to private/commercial banks.

....
The minority of people in Western economies who know that most of the money is created by private/commercial banks and want to keep it a responsibility of these banks (in total 4% ) are more in favor of free-market capitalism. They prefer competition over cooperation, are more inclined to take risks and are less concerned about the societal consequences of banking practices.

The current monetary system is illegitimate, based on popular ignorance

Overall, this unique survey strengthen the case that the legitimacy of the existing monetary system is extremely weak. The fact that the functioning of the monetary system is not publicly discussed, including in political circles seems to be the consequence of a large ignorance among the population more than a cautious choice by society. ....