A problem within economics

It's a social science, but it is unquestionably a science.

 

It's a science much like astronomy was a science before Kepler, or physics before Newton, or biology before Darwin.

 

Neither do I, because I comprehensively and conclusively demolished it. There would be no point in repeating it, and by continuing the exchange, you might find yourself with no choice but to know the fact that your beliefs are false and evil. Anything would be preferable to that.

You are free to continue committing the basic error Marx committed, which is the rotten intellectual foundation of both socialism and capitalism.

 

Social sciences don't use the scientific method. They simply analyze human behavior which changes on a whim. They are not sciences.

 

Yes, they do.

OK, so you know as little about other social sciences as you do about economics.

 

There are branches of Psych that are hard science, for example.

You know, you could have a fantasy world that's a lot more fun than your dreary escape from reality.

 

It's a continuum.

But saying where it is on that scale is not as easy as you'd think.

 

What would those be?

 

So you have no information to counter my opinions. All you do is insult me. Pretty weak.

 

There's a number, but they do things like study perception and cognition in a lab.

If you want to disagree, go to a University library first, and ask the research librarian.

 

It's pretty easy. Modern mainstream neoclassical economics has zero (0) empirical validity, and is completely unable to make reliably accurate predictions more complex than, "The recent trend will continue."

 

You have the information to counter your opinions: have you ever actually held a peer-reviewed journal of psychometrics, physical anthropology, history, archaeology, or economics in your hands? Of course not. That's all the information one needs to counter your opinions.

 

My take, it would likely be a form of hybrid feudalism (unless the aliens are a factor)

 

None of those things other than possibly anthropology are sciences. But to answer your question, of course I have.

 

I'm not surprised you don't know. It is common for you to invent things out of the blue.

 

They most certainly are.

No you haven't. That's obvious.

 

Are you serious? There are tsunamis of economic data available. What data do you want that isn't available?

 

I can't remember right now. Years ago I did some research into economic terms for some reason. And I came to realize that some of those terms came with a disclaimer that there weren't real-world data to support some aspects of economic thought. And, I knew the scientific method should be done to track data while keeping changes to one variable at a time. But, the real world is messy, and noisy, and that's a poor condition to study economic terms.

 

In the 70s, when I was writing Psych papers, I would see them on the shelves.

Btw, you are projecting, which is why you will carefully avoid talking to a research librarian..

 

I talk to you all the time. I disagree with you almost always. We figured that out a few post ago.

 

Facts are stubborn things, which is why you avoid them.

 

They're wrong.

Obviously it never occurred to you that those authors might have an agenda.

Equally obvious is the fact that it never occurred to you that you can have Capitalist Property Theory paired with the Command Market Economic System.

It has never been attempted, at least not yet, but there is a group whose goal is exactly that. You know them as the Trotskyites-dubbed-Neo-Cons.

Capital would be in private hands, hence Capitalism, but the Command Group, which might be the government or a quasi-government agency, but more likely a private group, would dictate prices and/or quotas and/or price ceilings/floors and/or what is to be produced, how it is to be produced and for whom it is to be produced.

I'm sure you'll be looking forward to that.

They're not false, since they exist and are in operation.

Reality.

The first Economic System was the Traditional Economic System. It began with the first family, clan, tribe, whatever you want to call it.

Tradition dictated what goods/services were to be produced/provided, how they would be produced/provided, and to whom they would be produced/provided.

There were, naturally, many variations. In some clans/tribes the largest share of anything went to the clan/tribal leader, or the elders, or the largest family, the best warrior, the shaman, etc etc etc.

That's how it was for a few 100,000 years. Land and other resources were generally held communally, so pretty much communism without democracy, although it's known that eligible males could vote on things in different tribes around the world, so it's not something limited to Africa, or the Americas or Eurasia.

With the rise of the State, kings now owned everything -- that's Socialism -- but more often than not, the Free Market Economic System ruled. There certain kings or certain States that dictated the prices of things or set quotas, or dictated what was to be produced/provided.

It's nonsense only to someone who has never taken Econ courses and doesn't have a BA in Economics.

The private ownership of land is not subsidized in the Free Market System.

Let's cut to the chase and call you out:

Explain specifically in detail -- not generalities -- how your silly system would work.

How is land divided? Who gets it? Households? Individuals? Persons over 18 years?

Once land is parceled out under your silly system, how is it subdivided? Or do new households and immigrant families not get any land?

I'm a combat leader. It would take me only a couple of hours to round up a battalion-sized unit and I'd seize and hold as much land as I wanted whenever I freaking felt like it and who's gonna stop me?

How do you intend on distributing goods/services? Are you gonna create market places and road to distribute goods to market places before or after you parcel land out?

If someone doesn't like their land and they want someone else's land, what are you gonna do about that?

Why would anyone with a brain listen to you in the first place?

 

No, good dictionaries are not wrong about the meanings of ordinary English words. Rather, it is people who seek to alter the definitions of words to serve an agenda who are wrong.

Obviously it never occurred to you that lexicographers' agenda is to inform usage.

Those are apparently just nonsenses that you have made up; but yes, it is obvious that fascism combines capitalism with a command system.

Such a chimera is simply bizarre.

Defined how?

Thanks for proving you have no alternative but to just make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written in clear, simple, grammatical English.

They are false because they contradict objective reality, like various religions which also exist and are in operation.

Nope. You'll have to offer some specific facts in evidence. And you can't.

There was no such group, so you are just makin' $#!+ up.

You are blissfully unaware of the fact that a system that begins with tradition is a contradiction in terms.
<silliness snipped>

No it isn't. A king is effectively a private landowner who discharges some functions of government. Socialism is by definition collective ownership of the means of production: producer goods ("capital") and natural resources ("land").

That is not a free market system.

<yawn> I have taught economics at the post-secondary level.

Land cannot be privately owned in a free market system because private ownership of land forces everyone to subsidize landowners, and forced subsidies are not allowed in a free market. Under capitalism, private ownership of land is indisputably subsidized because government forcibly removes everyone's liberty rights to use land and makes those rights over to landowners as their private property, without requiring them to pay justly for what they are taking from everyone else. The unimproved value of land simply records the market's estimate of the net future subsidy to the owner.

<yawn>

Why do you falsely claim liberty, justice, and economic efficiency are silly?

You mean allocated? It is divided more or less as now: into parcels of more or less convenient size and shape for the most productive use, with their boundaries determined by public roads and other infrastructure, geographical features, political borders, etc.

Secure, exclusive tenure is allocated to the prospective user who pays the local land administration office the market price for what he is taking from the community of those whom he purposes to deprive of their liberty rights to use the land.

Whoever (or whatever organization or institution) makes just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of their liberty rights to use it.

Subdivision occurs before allocation, and there is nothing silly about justice.

All citizens -- direct landholders and tenants alike -- get an equal individual exemption applied to the land parcel on which they reside. Immigrants have to wait until they are citizens to get the exemption.

You have an interesting fantasy life.

We no longer live in the kind of feudal conditions of forcible appropriation of land that you seem to think apply. Government administers possession and use of land in any case because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is whether it will discharge that function to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all its citizens to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, as I advocate, or only in the narrow financial interests of a rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning elite, as you prefer.

I'll leave that to those who produce them.

There is a large transportation infrastructure investment in place. There is probably no good reason to move most of it.

Not let them be evil: the existing user paid the community for secure, exclusive tenure, so it will not let anyone else interfere with that. If someone wants to pay the community for providing them with secure, exclusive tenure on some other land, there will always be parcels that are available due to death, business failure, etc. that they take take their choice of.

Because they have a brain, and care about liberty, justice, and the truth.

 

Where is the data on the depreciation of durable consumer goods? How about the annual depreciation of automobiles since 2000? You can't claim that we don't have the computing power.

But economists decided that the depreciation of durable consumer goods could be ignored decades ago and never told us.

When do you hear economists mention Net Domestic Product ?

 

I'm sure you are making a point but I don't understand what it is quite honestly. The OP claimed that there is a lack of data for economists to come up with a replacement system for capitalism. I opined that there is plenty of data available so...you think we need specific data on depreciation of durable goods to replace capitalism?

I'm pretty sure the Fed keeps track of that so knock yourself out.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1CTOTL1CD000/