Econ general I suppose.
>inb4 Austrians, Marxists or ancaps.
The only exception to that might be Hayek or Schumpeter. On that note, what did Hayek actually contribute to economics, aside from information and central planning? Also pic related, if anyone in the developed world says capitalism isn't working, perhaps tell them their citizenship rent is being lost and capital is being directed to the more cost efficient places, with the side effect of higher wages/standards of living in these countries which are developing.
Econ general I suppose.
>side effect of higher wages
Yeah enormous wage growth in that graph. I mean like wow 1%.
I was talking about high wages elsewere desu. Look at Asia/Eastern Europe etc
You said in the developed world. Of course wages are growing in Romania and Bulgaria for some time.
>higher wages/standards of living in these countries which are developing.
Why is growing wages in developing countries necessarily a bad thing? I get that the prices of imported goods may rise, but it also eases the wage gap between these and the developed economies. It could result in less offshoring/outsourcing and more demand for domestic goods, because their relative price falls compared to imported goods.
I was saying that higher wages was generally a good thing. My main point was that people in the West say wages have stagnated, where as across the world they've grown.
Well people in the west experience a stagnation in their own wage growth mainly because of low inflation, caused by serveral economic situations (low output etc.). Avereage people in the west doesn't care/know/show interest in/whatever in the wages of anyone but them self and those related (read: others from the west - mainly because of insecurity about their own wage)
- put simply and bold: People are misinformed. They show interest in anything that directly affect them, something they are envious of or something they feel is unfair to them. Other than that, the average person simply doesn't care to check facts.
To support your observations and give a perspective that is not neoclassical: Verspagen had a beautiful and simple theory from the early 90'ies called "cathing up".
It simply shows that those economies further away from their natural production level in a transmissionmechanism (poor countries) would experience a larger growth in general, unless the country didn't have the knowledge to imitate technological advancement. I.e. Eastern Europe will at some point catch up to the level of western europe given enough time. While countries in africa may never catch up because they often can't integrate simple technology (areas without electricity/internet for example) and therefore would not be able to keep up with the west. The growth in western countries will at some point stagnate. It's the principle of "low hanging fruits" - the advancement that are fast, easy and cheap will be done first. The more advanced a country becomes, the harder it is to better itself- Less advanced countries could copy the newer technology without R&D cost, time etc. and thereby experience a larger growth rate.
I agree, also with diminishing marginal returns catch up makes sense. By not neoclassical what school are you referring to?
It's also the fact that unfortunately due to societal factors, developed economies stagnate when it comes to population.
No growth in population, no need to create more goods and services for a particular level of technology.
economics is Veeky Forums related ya big fat nerd
It's also Veeky Forums related.
Is it fair to say that we've globalised the class system?
Whereas in say the 1920s there was a specific strata within industrialised nations of upper class, middle class and working class, now today we have entire nations that are heavily tilted towards middle(ish) class, such as western Europe. While simultaneously we have entire nations that are tilted towards working class (Bangladesh, China)
You could say that, places on different rungs on the development ladder. Although some places in the developed world (rust belt US the north of England UK ) haven't changed, they have just become unemployed. It's quite funny, while the coal miners were suppose to be left wing, they were also rather conservative in wanting to keep the industry forever.
Aye, I know specifically about northern England (I'm from there), but I would say that a lesser percentage of the old working class became the new structurally unemployed 'underclass', while also seeing others move into what were typically 'middle-class' jobs. The UK seems to be a nation of bankers, accountants, insurers and marketers now.
Comparative advantage my friend, does the culture in the north value education? I'm from northern Ireland and the now unemployed old Protestant working class are poor because they don't value education and there aren't many uneducated jobs left. While it costs to go to university, it costs more not to.
>does the culture in the north value education?
No, not at all. A lot of tall poppy syndrome. I was lucky I had parents that encouraged learning, but was and am still ragged on for it by my friends from home. For example when I was 22 I started self-teaching myself Russian just for the heck of it, when I told people they laughed at me and basically said I was a 'spiff' 'nerd' or whatever. Thats the kind of shit you expect in year 9, but not when you're 22.
That's dreadful, what is your opinion on Thatcher? Necessary policies but could have been done softer?
Free market capitalism with no government trash when? Fuck the current central banking monopoly
Thatcher is a very hit and miss figure. She was really good at breaking the backs of the unions (nobody remembers how dreadful the 70s were), privatized some really awful state industries (mines and coal), and she was fucking badass internationally. But when you're going to hollow out and cut off wasteful spending like that, then it might be a good idea to reinvest into either (or both) infrastructure and (re)education in the areas worst hit (Wales & the North), which she didn't do. We basically had to wait 15-20 years until New Labour started regenerating northern cities (Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool etc) and pouring money in, but the effects of 20 years structural unemployment still scar the social fabric up here and likely will for decades to come.
She was also retarded in some privatizations (utilities & rail), of which the effects are only beginning to fully haunt us now (rail fares rose something like 800% higher than wages in the last 8 years). The energy market is a natural monopoly market structure and in the end the consumer really gets fucked in that. I guess rail could primarily be pinned on the Major government when it was reformed into National Rail, but she got the ball rolling.
that is a free market, though.
Free marketes tend to coalesce into a a group of a few amount of people who have all the money, and then control the money since it's theirs. They then bond, because they can't be friends with anyone else or trust anyone else because it's impossible to trust someone new in your life when you are that rich except for other rich people who have no reason to scam you.
The only way to split up monopolies is...to literally split them up. Let free market reign, and when companies and corporations have too much market share or wealth, split them into smaller, competing corporations.
Free market is the default of human nature and civilization. It is the foundation for everything else. Free Market is how all economic policies should start, because you can't do anything else.
>a field based on hypothetically unlimited growth
Veeky Forums is finance
I think most of those natural monopoly privatisations are (and if not should be) regulated. I agree with you on the reinvestment idea, although trying to change a culture (education = uncool) is hard.
Is there a difference?
Finance is the management of money.
Economics is the study of factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
I was exaggerating.
Still, shouldn't this be on the board about a related subject? I don't know. It just seems like a better idea.
It's fine, though, I won't report it.
Verespagen is not necessarily part of a specific school. He is somewhat closest to the evolutionary growth paradigm in my opinion. He does not focus on the real economic factors likes savings, populationgrowth etc. like the neoclassics, but is more focused on explaining how the technological advancement is use in a economy. He mixes Nelson & Winthers search for explaining why innovation occurs, and the neoclassic application of the said innovation in the economy, and tries to describe what effects it has.
The neoclassic theories often assume technological advancedment as exogeniously given and analyses it's macro effects on one countrys GDP, while the Nelson & Winther in their evolutionary growth focusses on how the innovation occurs at the micro level without regards to the macro perspective. Verspagen focusses on the international distribution an effect of techological advancement while explaining the correlation between micro and macro
Thoughts on this?
>Ecological economics is a trans-disciplinary field. It's not trying to be a subdiscipline of economics or a subdiscipline of ecology, but really it's a bridge across not only ecology and economics but also psychology, anthropology, archaeology, and history. That's what’s necessary to get a more integrated picture of how humans have interacted with their environment in the past and how they might interact in the future. It’s an attempt to look at humans embedded in their ecological life-support system, not separate from the environment.
>Is there a difference?
>fucking humanities faggots
You're the type of retards that whine about 'muh gender wage gap' without having any idea about economics in the first place
Socialist calculation debate had been won by socialists ever since the Leontieff input-output analysis model came out. It allows for rational calculation of inputs and outputs given some desired output table.
Sadly, this had never been implemented in Soviet-type economics.
Some still try to continue the calculation debate, but most of the arguments now consist of a lack of understanding of the Leontieff input-output model by libertarians/Austrian economics type of people. They're usually too bad at math to understand it (because Austrian economics has almost no math and isn't a science, much like Marxist economics), so they make arguments based on the popsci articles they read about the model.
How can we reform the welfare state in order to make it sustainable?
Nothing. Hayek was a political thinker, not an economist
>muh dismal science
This belongs here.
>"I am a Classical-Liberal"
>"the free market needs to be set free"
>[produces a pic of static equilibrium where an upward sloping supply curve intersects a downward sloping demand curve]
>"it's just basic economics bro"
>[waves the cross of autism in my face]
>"this is just how it works... What, are you a MARXIST or something?"
>[subs to Stefen-onedollah]
Replace things like welfare, disability payments, and pensions with a guaranteed income.
Enhance education opportunities for the unemployed with conditional cash transfers as an incentive. Also get people to move around if they can't find a job in one place. Defined contribution pensions maybe?
What is the cross of autism?
Was this man ever correct?
I have a theory that economies don't stagnate due to an aging population. Rather they go through boom and busts phases depending on the age of the population. Elderly dieing off = Capital freed up = Better living = More kids
However, currently the rapidly increasing healthcare costs etc are putting more people into marginal living where they cant afford to even have children until they are much older.
Make industrial vassal states that can operate outside the immediate scope of the constitution to house the minorities and the working poor.
Contributions of F A Hayek
Economic calculation problem
But there are problems with input-output matrices. Namely, even when you do calculate the inputs you need to achieve the outputs you want, you change the outputs because all the inputs were based on calculations from BEFORE the change. I've always thought of it as a rational expectations style problem.
You are right about the lack of maths being a hinderance on the calculation debate tho.
>European name does twice the work of the Hispanic name