Economics is a rather vibrant subject area, despite The Economist sometimes rattling on and thereby suggesting otherwise. So what school of thought are you most sympathetic with and why? A non-exhaustive list, so add your own where necessary: Neoclassical Marxist Austrian Keynesian (neo, new or post) Reaction to Keynesianism: Monetarist, New Classical Ecological (including Georgism) Feminist Institutionalist (old or new) I'd call myself an institutionalist. By focusing on the firm (plus the labour market) there is greater understanding of economic outcome. Its then easily embedded within other schools of thought. Thus, given the tendency towards market power in capitalism, there is an understanding of the tendency towards crisis through post-Keynesianism. Nice and flexible, without ideological blinkering
Is there a category for "Confused"? Just as an aside, you might be interested in this article - More at http://www.smh.com.au/business/at-t...-struggling-to-measure-up-20140418-36wde.html
I am not into pedagogy. If any given school cannot produce an analysis with actionable utility, then it is not relevant to the issue at hand, whatever that might be. In an ideal world, I subscribe to the school of Smevinomics. As I have said before, I believe that the best system would be a civil economy that ignores all that everything is part of the commons nonsense. This is not an ideal world, so given the self-interested economic competition that dominates most schools of economics, I reject them all except to the extent that they can produce a logical and reasonable political application, which happens once every blue moon at best.
Non-didacticism is a great laugh! However, to ensure coherent argument, you do need a backbone to your analysis. A school gives you that. You sure that you don't naturally gravitate to one without realising it? Most laymen would be neo-classical, arguably because how it dominates the airwaves
Honestly don't know enough about it to be anything. I tend to ascribe to the theory of leisure class. Pragmatically though, I think it is an economic principal that can evolve into something else.
Yes. The subject is not one of my strong points though, and if anyone gets too deep into stats, graphs, Inverse trig functions and so on I cash out. Strong economies seem to depend on whole societies agreeing to big endeavors. It doesn't seem like the endeavor has to have any real function either. Huge inequities are pretty normal in dynamic economies. Exceptions to all of that of course. If everyone could agree on one big goal and work toward it the economy would fall in line. Thats my basic opinion. What does that make me? In simple language why is my stance flawed? Or is it close?
World war springs to mind (not that I'm suggesting that's what we should go for). World War 1, for example, saw substantial improvements in living standards (suddenly folk could eat relatively well!). World War 2 also led to significant social change. But how to achieve that without killing millions? Threat, rather than promise, seems to be easier Behavioural economics is a difficult one. It can be used to support the status quo or demand more heterodox approaches. However, on the bright side, you can avoid the humdrum maths that inflicts some aspects of economics. I'd need more detail. Take an important policy issue today and give your opinion. Something like 'how can economics be used to solve/reduce climate change problems?'
I see economy as an outcome of other factors not the cause of them. So using it to do something seems unlikely. Proper government investment and incentives can help the economy and a particular problem (like climate change), but they seem to most often backfire. Sorry. WW2 was on my mind too. Post WW2 America anyway. The US would have had a boom no matter what, we were the best equipped industrial nation due to the ravages of the war. Do you think we would have been better off economically if we had focused on reparations and avoided taking responsibility for rebuilding? Or would it have allowed the USSR the opportunity to capture the european market and destroyed that eras economic bedrock?
You bring up a possible different way of looking things. I've referred to economic schools, but we could go back and refer instead to political economic schools. Bluntly speaking, that will often separate into three: realist (where political power, rather than economics, dominates); liberal (in terms of limited government) and historical structuralism (focused on more left thinking commentary, such as the dangers of multinationals and how they negate the importance of political sovereignty). So post-war? A realist approach would focus on the importance of putting the Soviets in a straitjacket. A liberal approach would highlight the gains from re-building and creating a Western free trade area. A historical structuralist approach would perhaps refer to how capitalism needed to be protected, else revolutionary change would be threatened). Me? I'd go with hegemonic state theory. The US was behind European integration. It did that as the long term trade gains are spectacularly positive, whilst also ensuring reduced conflict risks
I answered the question in the part you redacted or ignored: If any given school cannot produce an analysis with actionable utility, then it is not relevant to the issue at hand, whatever that might be." If we are discussing, inflationary constraints on money supply, MMT is the school to look at. If we are looking at why people are not buying as much at JC Penny, the Austrians have more relevance. All schools have their pluses and minuses in terms of applications.
The Austrians have no coherent theory of the firm or any understanding of the labour market. If you're interested in practical relevance then its an awkward one to go for
Yes, their study of why consumers do what they do has more relevance to some discussions than others. I already told you which school I go for--Smevinomics.
There is no understanding of economic outcome without understanding of the firm. Behavioural economics has made great strides in understanding consumer behaviour. That hasn't given any ammo to the Austrians
Paul Lafargue Marxist and I also admire Bob Black and his essay The Abolition of Work built along similar lines as Lefargue's theory of leisure. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/Bob_Black__The_Abolition_of_Work.html Basically kill dull and useless work and end the need to work using technology to kill those jobs and free humans from having to work at all, but if a person enjoys something like science let them do that. After all robots could evolve in purpose to do many areas of work maybe cyber farms etc. Even robots to make robots so humans don't have to do that anymore either.
I didn't think much of the reference to work. Whilst I have sympathy for the 'forced labour' comment, the problem is leisure is just seen as not-work. Work is, at best, treated as neutral (i.e. it provides no utility in itself). That is simply not the case. And its not just the top occupations which yield satisfaction in themselves. It can go to the most basic jobs.
Well even Mr. Black called the end result ideal the end of work. But the idea is we have enough resources so no one should have to work or at least work as much and we could eliminate some work by machination. But if people LIKE doing something that's fine for example of someone enjoys academics and science let them do that, even state support and then they can work as they wish. The same thing if someone enjoys grounds keeping and gardening they can do that. But if someone doesn't want to work why make them work, just give them the same basic benefit. Most people would want to find things to do but say your a fisherman and you like that, that is your trade, and want to take a year or two off to spend with a new child why not let them?
But to what extent does 'forced work' then lead to positive spillover effects? From a sense of belonging to promotion of knowledge formation. We know that mental illness, for example, increases with the closure of factories. Some of that will reflect increased pressure through monetary deprivation, but there are also positive psychological effects from work structure. The idea that voluntary behaviour will always replicate that result seems a little hopeful
