I think the idea of Georgism at least was that it was eventually supposed to lead to a system where land is more in the hands of more people.
The problem is that it's from a century or two ago and the next problem is figuring out how to translate that to the modern day. The longer we go, the harder it is to fix systemic injustices without some other kind of injustice.

Isn't that the biggest dilemma of big change?
Addressing the injustices of the current age often means taking away from those who played by the rules... even if those rules were injust.

If life were a game, we'd just finish it and start the improved rules on the next one... but it isn't. We either accept an injustice forever, citing the problems for those who benefitted from the status quo... or we shift the rules to a more just system but end up doing great injustice to some people... at least in the short term.

So the lesson we can take from this:
People who claim life is a game are full of BS!

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Economics is not an abstract science, and requires an understanding of the choices that people make, which relies on human nature. History gives an understanding of both the choices people make in a given situation, and therefore gives us insight into human nature. This is directly related to economics and cannot be ignored when discussing it.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

It is however important to note the ways in which economists rarely agree and even more rarely predict anything accurately.
Economics is as problematic as any social science. But many in economics continue to pretend that it's akin to physics.

I don't see how you can claim it not to be abstract.
History is not a science at all. It tends to give some understanding but not without being placed in context. Too many mistakes are made by generalizing history and attempting to use it as a predictor of the future.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Econ is in between social science and physics. There are hard and fast rules that apply and direct cause and effect relationships. There's tons of data and many things are quite easily and accurately predicted. And economists will be in agreement on all those things. The "softer" aspect comes in because the number of variables affecting the economy is vast. In other words, economists know as a fact, all other things held constant, what is going to happen. The problem is we can't hold all other things constant like hard sciences can. Econ experiments cannot happen in a lab. So all you can do is take all the data as a whole and try and figure out the result. Which will lead to disagreement. But the disagreements are generally not of the "what will happen?" variety, but rather the scope.

__________________
This space for rent.

Too many mistakes are made by people who ignore history and act like they know what they're doing.
And there is disagreement among economists because we have been infiltrated by liberal. That is all.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

Agreed. The two points are not mutually exclusive.
The problem is that history can be viewed through many lenses and that all historical events occur in multivariable settings. Study of why things happen tends to be limited by forces like those described in chaos theory.
People who look too deeply at history as a predictor tend to make the mistakes of believing whatever worked was the only thing that would work or whatever failed would always fail.
On the other hand, historical data is necessary for any kind of scientific or semi-scientific analysis.

Right. And that explains why there are also strong disagreements within liberal and conservative camps...
I don't consider socialism so much an economic theory as most of its bases are in differing values rather than economic analysis... They'll admit to problems with the growth of economies under socialism but determine it worth it for social benefit... It's incompatible as they are arguing something else.

But you still have varying degrees of the neo-classical and neo-Keynesian outlooks (which are really part of the same overall philosophy), as well as the wacky far-right Austrian stuff.
For the most part everyone in the field, liberal or conservative, is part of "neo-classical fusion."
It doesn't seem to lead to an end to the arguments on policy.
And it still hasn't made things any more or less predictable.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Economics becomes a very complex science when it attempts to account for all the variables, and it is impractical to try to set up an "economic experiment" as some hhttp://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=515977
Political Forum - Reply to Topicave called for in order to reduce the number of variables to one. However, those who support looking at history to determine future events do have the advantage. History continues, and the evidence in their favor will continue to pile up until anyone who argues that we are going into a new era of human existence will look like an idiot. Extending the deterministic chaos theory to economics is a bit of a stretch I think, because people's decisions will always be relatively constant. I'm not saying that there is something new out there that could possibly work better, but I do know that there is nothing people have yet proposed as an alternative to classical capitalism that I don't find repulsive.

I don't think socialism is an economic theory either, it is more of an idealistic thing. Economics is more of a science (though not completely). I think that most people care more about their economic status than their social status, take the middle class culture in the developing China for example. They are still oppressed by the government, but they don't care so long as they have the good they want. Policy is motivated more by self-interest than principles, unfortunately.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

That's bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Economists are predicting the outcome constantly. Usually when an economist disagrees it's because they're talking about a different point in time. You need to be able to understand the difference between the short run and the long run effects - which is very very hard. For example, I know oil is going to go down in price, but it may take 10 years to do it. So does that mean that it's a bad idea to buy an oil stock? No, because in the next two weeks oil could go up to $150 a barrel. So is it right to say oil is going up to rise in price? Yes. Is it right to say oil is going to fall in price? Yes.

Don't try to bad mouth economists unless you are one.

__________________
It doesn't matter who we elect, it doesn't matter what they've done or who they've done, what is important is what they actually do. Too many politicians are politicians - they like to talk about useless issues and keep people in the dark about the real issue: money. I will always care more about what the government tells me I have to spend my money on, opposed to some unborn assassination. Freedom is the right to chose, on everything.

Im a history major and I agree with you 100%.


When trying to use different "tools" as predictors looking at history should most definitely be one of those tools that you use.

But not the only one.....Yes History does repeat itself, however it usually does so with a twist of sorts.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson

This is essentially the same problem social sciences face... except since other social sciences don't focus on just one aspect of society (the economy) there are even more weird variables to consider.
I think it really amounts to being the same as predicting the weather. Only the butterflies involved wseem to flap their wings even more unpredictably.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III