Why do Economists rarely seem to run for political office...

But there are always going to be policies which show immediate improvements like cutting taxes

voters vote with emotion, not facts

What this guy said They work better as advisors, because an actual head of government takes on a myriad of responsibilities, rather than merely focusing on one aspect of the job.

If someone like Freidman or Smith were president or prime minister, respectively, i'm sure they would most likely fix any economic failings within the country in due time. Though it's equally likely that their economic policies will damage other areas, such as social security, leading to mass protest.

Leading a country is less about plugging a hole to fix a problem, and more about juggling multiple problems for as long as you can without dropping anything.

Because they know that you can't destroy liberalism with liberal "democracy".

>marxist economics is the best
>that's why all the countries that used to practice it either collapsed or completely abandoned it
Sure.

>all the countries that used to practice it either collapsed or completely abandoned it
Which countries?

>Marxist economics
Literally predicated on the existence of ectoplasmic goo. It exists only where it belongs, in the dustbin of history.

>USSR
>Albania
>romania
>North Korea
>cambodia
the list could go on...

In what way were any of those countries socialist?

Where's the ACTUAL meme of this that isn't fucked up by commie propaganda?

>In what way were any of those countries socialist?

The unaltered image. Silly commie leave the economics to adults

>Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!
They just know better.

Looks like we found ourselves a "not real socialism" retard

saved

Do /pol/tards even posses the mental capacity to argue their own positions or are they only capable of posting meme images?

Do you, retard?

I think I have a reasonable capability for it yeah.

Seeming as you're clearly struggling here, I'll help you out. Here's a simple formula you can use to find out whether a country is Socialist or not.

Do the workers possess the means of production?
If yes - it's Socialist
If no - it's Not

So tell me again. How have any of those countries you've listed given the means of production to the workers?

They're willingly ignorant enough to tell you that totalitarian states and muh workers are interchangeable in this sense.

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of """""""""public"""""'""","

Public = Government
Your argument = retarded

Meme images are the only appropriate response to meme explanations

Not.An.Argument.

>Public = Government

public adjective (PEOPLE)
- relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people

Government ownership of everything seems like limitation to a particular group of people to me.

And pray tell, by who is the government chosen?

"Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing """"society,"""" by government, state power or some other political body."

No true scotsman fallacy/10

Good question, who did choose the government in Communist USSR, Albania, Romania, North Korea and Cambodia? Hmmmmm.

>No true scotsman fallacy/10
Ironic seeming as you're doing the same.
>the right of disposal, by a public body representing """"society,""""

It's much easier and profitable to be a (((pundit))) and influence policies from the background

>Good question, who did choose the government in Communist USSR, Albania, Romania, North Korea and Cambodia? Hmmmmm.

I am talking of Venezuela, which seemed to be the socialist paradise until a couple of months ago

>Not an argument

Karl Marx has literally stated that for socialism you need a "dictatorship of the proletariat" Once again, we see now that throughout history socialism has been nothing more than a meme-tier philosophy at odds with itself, hence it is perfectly appropriate to piss you morons off with these memes

because they run banks instead?

for someone who masturbates over materialism he sure doesn't seem to understand someone has to build and organize the factories/capital and create supply where there is demand

>I am talking of Venezuela, which seemed to be the socialist paradise until a couple of months ago
Did it?

Wrong. The Proletarian Dictator is necessary to guide society into Communism, which is stateless. Until the Proletarian Dictator achieves his job and steps down as he is no longer necessary, Communism cannot exist. A theory that Bakunin contested heavily.

Well, to hear the socialists and the commies like Chomsky talk about it, you'd think it was the kingdom of heaven come

>Do the workers possess the means of production?

Yes, via the state, since there is no other practical way for that to happen.

Marxists seem to think that it's possible to own property without a threat of violence backing up that exclusive claim.

I guess that's why it's so hard for them to realize that abolishing private property actually requires either state coercion or simply an army to murder all the capitalists.

Which is funny that they don't realize, because that's precisely what Marx advocated.

Well some of the edgier more autistic commies call for a revolutionary "holocaust"

Because there are several different economic schools and the moment one actual economist would enter the race, other economic school(s) would put "their" candidate and those "technocratic" candidates would turn elections and debates into pile of shit for everybody else but themselves, so the very first populist in that crowd would get unproportional number of votes for the sake of having some charisma to speak for himself.

They do, but most socialists and communists in general think that state ownership of private property doesn't constitutes socialism, even though they never explain how private property is supposed to look like without some institutional bureaucracy arbitrating it.

>but most socialists and communists in general think that state ownership of private property doesn't constitutes socialism

Wut? But that's like the main defiition of socialism. State (or "collective") ownership of the means of production

Um Marxists actually believe that existence of private property is maintained by the state.

Yeah, but collective or public in their minds doesn't mean state ownership, which is why they think they can criticize the USSR without abandoning their principles.

See Trotskyism for example; instead of admitting that the USSR was a socialist state, they call it state capitalism instead, or a degenerated workers state, so that they can still keep hoping that their pipedream will come true one day.

Poincare's input in theory of relativity are unfinished and unproven formulas, Einstein made them work and added his own, creating what became theory of relativity.

There was a 19th century mathematician who tackled many subjects mathematics were dealing with in the next 2 centuries but he was also insane and thought it all came from God, most of his works are shoddily-written, barely readable manuscripts(early ones in very poor french, later he improved) with no proofs - God showed him formulas and he didn't ask him for proofs. In the end he was right at some of them(wrong on the others) and his name is known to people who dealt with math past high school - there's a specific determinant named after him(Wronskian) but nobody in his sane mind claims that people who built their theories basing off some of his work were plagiarists who stole his discoveries for fuck's sake.

>companies will seek to improve profits through greater investments so they will increase wages rather than expand

Holy shit the guy who made it was a tool.

The state does not constitute the collective.

>but collective or public in their minds doesn't mean state ownership

For some of them I think. Remember leftist wackos are divided into small obscure subgroups fighting with each other all the time over ideology.

Leninist and Stalinists think state ownership under the guise of the vanguard party is a necessary step to socialism.

"Anarcho"communists want to abolish the state outright from the very start.

etc

Don't even bother with those inane debates they are meaningless. Just make fun of those reddit neckbeards and move on.

Einstein Veeky Forumsbara shill, fuck off.

>Remember leftist wackos are divided into small obscure subgroups fighting with each other all the time over ideology.

This is very true, and I experienced it first hand when I was a Commie myself as a teenager.

Even in a small country like Norway, where commies literally number perhaps a couple of thousand officially, they couldn't agree on anything.

>All value is created by workers
I'll never understand how anyone can believe this bullshit

I'm not a Socialist but that makes perfect sense. How is it bullshit?

Seeming the majority of socialists always fight for a fucking "dictatorship of the proletariat" as admitted by former guerrilla fighters and ideologues, I'd say you and your scourge aren't the real socialists.

>B-but
Notice how every left leaninh policy requires a big strong government to enforce?
You can't have unnatural systems without strong enforcement.

The subjective theory of value dismantles that theory quite easily. Also, natural resources are not created by "workers" are they?

You don't even understand what Marx means by value. Look up Marx's theory of value.

And in fact yes, if there are no workers to harvest those resources and render them available for use then on their own they are worthless.

Yes I'm quite familiar with the labor theory of value. A high school who took a basic economics course can pick it apart. It doesn't take into account various things like interest rates, inflation, supply and demand, deficit spending, business regulations and taxes, state monopolies, state-sanctioned monopolies, volunteers, interns.......etc. you get the point

>It doesn't take into account various things like interest rates, inflation, supply and demand, deficit spending, business regulations and taxes, state monopolies, state-sanctioned monopolies, volunteers, interns
Yeah like I said. You don't even know what Labour Theory of Value is.

To begin with, the socialist definition of work is limited (many of them seem to think a scientists' research, an accountants' accounting, or a manager's managing are somehow "worth less"), value isn't inherent only to work (gold has value for instance), but also to intellectual property (you can't do something if you don't have the idea for it) and the means through which one can do the work (e.g. my work is nothing without a computer, because otherwise I'd just be writing shit on a piece of paper and praying to god that it runs), and often the work is dilluted, not only due to the way production is organized but also because it'd be impossible for an individual effort to produce whatever it is they are aiming to produce.
Ultimately workers are being paid what their work is worth, because this is an exchange like any others. The belief that their work is worth more than what is defined by the supply and demand is hilarious, labour is a product like any other so stop trying to mysticize it due to the oppression industrial workers felt 200 years ago.

Plus, socialists just replace the capitalist with the state as they know a completely descentralized system doesn't work in any way.

Quite the argument

Because economists do actual governance from think tanks and central banks, elected politicians just do theatre for plebs.

>Hurr if there are no workers to harvest
If you pick up a piece of gold from a river, is it now worth less in the markets because you didn't work to get it?

Nah, if you've got rich through usury you should be beheaded by pack of angry niggers.

>people have nothing to say to each other
>so they'll shut up
A true autist.

What the fuck are you on about?

More importantly, the money saved by my family's labour, should we be stopped from turning it into investment?
Because I'll go tell my father he can put his decades of savings down the drain because socialists seem to think it'd be evil for him to trade his resources for means to produce more.

>What the fuck are you on about?
Usurers should get murdered brutally. Along with their spouses, children and entire families so none of their genes will be passed forward.

Daily reminder.

Muslim detected

Radical mutualist*

Oy vey, it's like anothe shoah!

Nice meme.
Do you think it'll take long after you begin working to see how idiotic that idea is?
I mean sure, every idea about human society seems fair game if your only interaction with it is hearing their noise from your mom's basement, but eventually every bird has to fly from it's nest right? Even if to crash on it's face.

Aka 3rd degree Autism

>Do you think it'll take long after you begin working to see how idiotic that idea is?
It's pretty great idea imho. Machete rape squads running left and right killing undesirables on the streets sound based as fuck.

Purge?

In Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East it would be a great way to lower the population but not in the civilized world

constant everlasting continuous purge
bullshit it works everywhere, you just have to try it out and you'll notice that you can't get enough!

Latin America and the Middle East aren't overpopulated you dumbshit.
They are poorly managed and have awful culture, but they aren't overpopulated, in fact most of Latin America is either done the demographic switch or are undergoing it.

In capitalist society a poor and working class will be needed until we've finished developing machines and robots for those jobs

And then the radical mutualist working class morlocks will go out on the street and kill ever single eloi bourgeois with through superior firepower guaranteed by their superior numbers.

Have fun I know I will.

You'll get destroyed by an army of T-800s

Stop watching Avatar you ludite

>implying eloi will develop terminators

Stop joking man, it'll look as I tell you - faggot police paid by bourgeois eloi will encounter the morlocks for the first time and shout with firm affirmative voice: STOP YOU ARE ENTERING RESTRICTED AREA, ONLY ELOI ARE ALLO... and then get shot in the head with fucking shotgun. They won't be able to shoot back because guns make eloi feel uncomfortable since they're iffy and stuff and then the purge begins. The greatest purge of our mankind in which all the fucking useless motherfuckers will suffer.

why the fuck would anyone who can see how things work get into politics

don't you remember that all of them started out as 100% socialist, but soon realized that socialism doesn't work and started to edict changes into the system to make it more like capitalism. the closer soviet empire was to the end of the century the more capitalist it had become.

>Guns are iffy
Only middle class women and cucks are afraid of guns.

Who says that they don't realise that? Most Marxists are perfectly fine with the state enforcing their ideas.

The elites are afraid of them too. That's why they hire armed bodyguards and want the morlocks to be disarmed, because they know that their bodyguards will be outnumbered and defeated quickly once The Great Purge begins.

That makes no sense. Without their beloved An-Com or "Libertarian Socialist" ideas possible why would they bother with the failures Socialism? Marxists should've conceded defeat decatdes ago. It's like eating another turd because you think it might taste better than the first time you ate shit.

>greater investment=increased wages
Holy shit do Austardian economists actually believe this?

>if u disagree u look liek dis xD
Looks like somebody's triggered

>hurr socialism is le government welfare
My god, kill yourself already

Fuck off Stefan

>Holy shit do Austardian economists actually believe this?
Wages are usually related to capitalization.

>I am talking of Venezuela, which seemed to be the socialist paradise until a couple of months ago

Literally nobody thought this. People support the Venezuelan government because they oppose US imperialism, not because using oilbux to fund welfare makes a country a "socialist paradise".