I’ve just been doing a little bit of thinking lately. I am not a professional economist, so, I can’t really go in depth with talking about the way the economy is. I can only do theoretical stuff, and talk about what I see.
The first big problem with economists is that everyone is so dogmatic. Rothbard, Hayek, Krugman, Keynes, and all of these other economists nowadays seem to suffer from the study of economics as a religion. People like to look at their opinions. They treat their opinions as facts and often times when people cling to their opinions they’ll say anything- even BS that doesn’t even exist in reality. They’ll make stuff up, and, well honestly that’s what a lot of people on the left, the right, and even people who are libertarians tend to do. I’ll give you some ideas.
Liberals always seem to think that their government spending programs always work. They look at Europe and they look at how other countries have a lot of welfare spending, and, how they have socialized medicine. They think that they know best and that Europe has a better standard of living than we do so they think we should imitate their standards. But of course as we know- too much welfare can lead to people becoming too dependent on the state, and, in France in particular- that’s pretty much the extreme of the situation, and, a lot of people are unemployed there because of their policies.
The economic stimulus hasn’t helped the unemployed and the impoverished. All it’s done has helped the financial elite. What liberals do, is, that they claim that regulation would be better than a completely unregulated market- and they always point to the great depression and how the new deal “rescued the economy from collapse” (we all know the real story- the fed caused it). Liberals don’t realize there is a right place for their policies and there is a wrong place for them. It’s not wrong for employers to provide all the things necessary for people to live… but big housing programs, and publics works projects may not work because they don’t stimulate the economy around themselves- they only stimulate that area of the economy, and, those programs can even cause bubbles later on.
Conservatives are dogmatic in the sense because they always believe the market will work itself out. When not properly kept in check- corporations can become predators and pollute as they will, get themselves involved in wars, abet terrorist groups, and do a lot of things. It’s much easier to keep corporations in check now than it was before- before the only tool that they had against corporations was regulations from the government, but now because of the internet if a corporation does something bad we’ll all know about it and its reputation will be ruined.
They are dogmatic- because they are misguided. They take the idea of a 19th century ideology- but they fail to realize the changing times. They fail to realize that we don’t live in a laissez-fair utopia. We live in an economy where a lot of corporations and small businesses are helped being propped up by the state. We live in an economy where the government relies on corporations to assist them in their military adventures. We live in a country where the government is in bed with corporate executives, and, while it is true the government passed the financial reform act- that still doesn’t change the fact that the government still relies a lot on corporations for financial support (for politicians), and political support. The influence of these private tyrannies run deep, and, conservatives who believe this 19th century ideology fail to see this.
Now again- there are those conservatives that recognize that times have changed. They have shaped the 19th century laissez fair ideology to be supply side economics. Supply side economists believed that if you gave more money to corporations that they would produce more. It sounds simple. Right? Well corporations certainly got a boom- but it came at the expense of the middle class (http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20592). These people are corporate shills- and while Democrats tend to say that they support the middle class- they seem to indirectly also be supporting Reaganomics.
Libertarian economists like Rothbard, and Ludwig Von Mises are right in the sense that government influence has gotten too big. But many libertarians cling to this ideology- and they fail to see all the influence that the market has on everyone else. They don’t see how much influence corporations have on our monetary policy, and, how they can control it. They don’t see how much power that interest groups actually have, and, how closely in bed they are with the state. I believe that when a lot of these economists talk about privileges- they have in mind the common people.
But, corporations feel that they are entitled to things as well. The FCC- for example is a privately owned broadcasting government group, for corporations. It may have not started out that way- and may have started out to ensure fair competition, but, the FCC made the rules of the game so that you could only have a TV station if you were authorized to by a regular TV company (just look at their rules). They’ve given the people in the industry a monopoly over television. This is why they form interest groups! The government gives them what they want, and, the corporations take it. The governments grant them monopolies, they grant them all legal powers, and, all kinds of rights we don’t have. So, the point is not that government regulation has gotten too large- but that we need to find out what kind of laws we need to best serve our interests, to serve free trade, capitalism, and, well ending the culture of interest would be very anti-Democratic in the government- but at least we should make it more transparent. But recognizing that government intervention doesn’t work is only half the problem.
The point is that economists tend to become propagandists when they cling to their opinions, and, they should try to just see what’s really going on. An economist is supposed to tell what’s going on, not, fantasize what’s going on.
The second biggest problem with economists is that they only seem to talk about statistics relating to the national economy. They point towards the 9 percent unemployment rating and talk about consumer confidence as if that were the only measure that they have to measure how the economy. People don’t realize that economics is more regional than nation wide.
I am not an economist- but I am able to recognize that countries have different regions. Different regions have different needs than other regions. What economists need to do is to look at these various regions and figure out what is wrong with them. It’s like the whole economic discussion is getting everyone to spend again- but they’re missing the whole point. How the heck are we going to spend if we have a terrible infrastructure problem, and, we don’t have businesses that can create jobs? The government can’t just artificially prop up jobs. They would just be temporary. The different regions of the country and the people of the various states have to actually make the best of their situation.
How are we supposed to have a discussion about the economy without looking at various state’s economic problems? It’s as if this is missing from the whole discussion of the economy. Yes, we know that states are deep in debt- but how are communities going to know how to fix it if they don’t know about what the other states are like, and what businesses are doing poorly or not poorly?
It’s a bit messed up… I don’t know why this discussion isn’t there. Anyhow, what do you think?