Is anyone here into economics?

Is anyone here into economics?

Do we all agree neoliberalism is the disease of our age?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21576372-how-get-india-moving-again-capitalist-manifesto
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

...

Veeky Forums has little to do with economics at large.
It is about cryptocurrencies and getting rich.
/pol/ explains economics in terms of Jews and Immigrants.

Afaik there are a few econ lurkers here but most people go to for that kind of discussion.

Pretty sure most people agree neoliberalism is the disease of our age regardless of their degree.

>Pretty sure most people agree neoliberalism is the disease of our age regardless of their degree.

I doubt they do. Most are simply indifferent to it, even though protest movements, such as Sanders, Syriza or Podemos mushroom here and there.

>Do we all agree neoliberalism is the disease of our age?

>be OP
>post graph showing he decline of the middle class
>blame "muh liberals"

OP, the liberals created the middle class, the conservatives are trying to tear it down.

I hope Mississippi can slowly get back on its feet not that it got rid of its problem

>t. I'm 9 and what is economics?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

The Conservatives are the economic Liberals nowadays.

If this statement confuses you, you have to lurk moar first.

>inequality
go to /leftypol/

you mean reddit?

>this thread
Why americans always confuses the modern liberalism, classic liberalism and neoliberalism?

Anyone know of any good general-audience books related to the economy in general, and/or financialization in particular?

I've never taken an economics class, and struggle to follow economics discussion as soon as it starts to get jargony. I've been listening to a series of podcasts from an economics professor which have helped a bit, but I still have a very rudimentary understanding. Politically I know that I'm very opposed to neoliberalism and financialization, but at the moment I can't articulate why I dislike it in any other way then some vague discomfort about how abstract the economy has become.

Second this question.

They dont distinguish from liberalism as a social movement questioning existing structures and neoliberalism, the failed economic experiment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

Is it safe to say that Financialization led to the Crisis 2008?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

has little to do with financialization, a late 20th century trend

Excuse me, I meant to say most people here do, not in general. Countries that have been hurt most by neoliberalism try to fight back like you said, but Syriza was forced to do as Germany said either way and I doubt Podemos can do much after that last election farce. Truth is, the establishment always finds ways to sway people back to their way of thinking despite the fact that they have exacerbated the economic situation wherever they are in charge. Quite impressive.

Whilst I agree with your description of the general situation, there has been a stark counter-example some weeks ago.

Brexit, namely.

neoliberal is joke vocabulary, it's a bunch of liberal-in-name-only republitards shitting on us under a different 'flag'

Nothing wrong with neoliberalism.
t. Math/Econ

Also you should talk about income inequality OP, specifically measured by individuals and not households, for a better idea of equality. It's not very bad.

If neoliberalism is the disease of our age who are the neoliberals of our age?

Who /economicgeography/ here?

Social liberalism and economic liberalism are two sides of the same coin my friend. The prior attempts to erode cultural and traditional barriers to free trade such as the church, modesty and conservative moral values all the while the latter establishes the actual free trade that follows.

I agree. Would you care to hear a neoliberal quote I just read?

Good thing he didn't hand write that tweat. Could you imagine.

explain.

why individuals, not househoulds? and what exactly is not very bad?

also, what's your stance on the decline of social welfare due to austerity and how it has affected politics? my take is that it enables movements like Trump (USA), Johnson/Farage (UK), FN (France), AfD (Germany), FPÖ (Austria) and other shitheads of comparable calibre elsewhere.

i should also add that it is my firm belief that deregulation and reduction of government spending does not, as is suggested, enhance society as a whole as the private sector has no immediate incentive to commit to social responsibility. i believe that this is something which has to be enforced by society in order to reduce/control income and wealth inequality. otherwise, with too big of a gap between "rich" and "poor", for lack of better terms, violence and crime are unnecessarily encouraged while societal solidarity is severely damaged, leading to a less favorable situation for the majority of citizens.

kikes are managing to scam the bottom class from the looks of it.

I fully expect more swings like before 1940.

Change in household income equality is a bad gauge due to changes possibly being based on exogenous affects like cultural shifts (family structure, employment of both spouses, etc.) rather than actual inequality in the way that's being purported. Judging by the income of an individual is a much better standard, especially now that women are a sizable part of the workforce.

In this picture, the gini coefficient/ratio is pretty much the most notable measure of inequality. The higher the number, the more unequal the income is distributed. If you notice, U.S. persons doesn't change too much, however, household is obviously rising. This should be a clear indicator of issues with taking measurements, or restructuring of the American family economy.

I encourage you look at countries like India and see the shift in well being of the people when they turn towards free-market systems and depart from central planning.

economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21576372-how-get-india-moving-again-capitalist-manifesto

Also, for well being overall and various trends relating, Angus Deaton has a great book on that called "The Great Escape".

Also, im going to make clear. I'm not for total deregulation, as that's actually insane. Some market failures are by their definition unfixable by the free market. It's the job of policy makers to smooth out the system, but should stay out as best as possible. Often, in the pursuit of equity, the loss in efficiency is so great that we arguably have negative net equity due to outcomes. I'd also love to hear this

>violence and crime are unnecessarily encouraged while societal solidarity is severely damaged

explanation, because I can't really see where you're coming from.

inequality is 100% a marxist concept
It doesn't actually exist

Lol, spotted the retard.

the worst thing about this post is that I can't tell if it's bait or not

Neoconservative Republicans, most Democrats, GW Bush, Obama, Hillary, probably Trump but it's too early to say for sure.

Basically anybody that supports handouts to big business

If super rich immortal aliens moved into the moon

Would we instantly be worse off due to "inequality"?
check and mate

this image might help

No, but if immortal aliens ruled us and decided to stop paying us proportionally for our work in their factories and businesses, yes we would.

this

well said, now back to your containment board

this is all about business and investing, or microeconomics

we are talking about macroeconomics here, the bigger picture

Why is there the idiot by Dostoevskij?

>Karl Marx is microeconomics
What did he mean by this?

What you mean to say is inequity doesn't always mean inequality.

Some people are Bill Gates, and others are Chinese factory workers.

The problem with Marxists is that they think the Chinese factory workers are poor because of Bill Gates.

Yeah dude you have too look into before you just go by "liberal" in the word. I wasnt sure what it was either had to looked into it. Its pretty much all the shit i'm against and what Bernie Sanders is trying to get rid of.

... which is partially true

Now that Bernie Sanders is out of the race, we will continue the same road for another four years.

Most rising right-wingers in Europe are also as neoliberal as it gets.

>implying Marx never said that the capitalist class is by definition exploiting the working class
>implying Marx never said that the capitalist is essentially siphoning off the surplus value of the laboring of workers
>implying Marx didn't think ALL capitalists were complicit in this horrible exploitation and that they all should be carted off and shot, and their wealth redistributed

Okay bro.

pretty much

But they will convince people that they are anti-establishment and get voted into power... people never learn.

to be fair though, sanders didn't really stand a chance in the bastion of capitalism

Marx was right. The last part included, even though it's not a problem you can genetically do away with.

>Marx was right.

No, he wasn't. Workers are not a saintly class of people who are worth a genocide.

The worker class of today consist of 70-80% of the population.

And?

It means what it says.

I can understand English, but you didn't include a point in your observation.

>dindu nuffin meme
hello you seem to be lost

So I can't be against something by using memes on the board that literally started memes on the internet without being a /pol/-tard?

How retarded, but I know now that this board isn't really Veeky Forums.

Marx wasn't right, because under Marxist thought anyone who is upwardly mobile is by definition "a class traitor"

I agree. The common man, or "worker", is just as much a potential enemy as an elite. I'd just like to see a lot of these people dead, and this strategy if executed in a pure manner, eliminates a lot of having to try to control for unknown connections, leverage, and social / economic vacuums. There's a bit of collateral damage, but you get most of 'em at once.

There would be a resulting power struggle. Marx and anyone who came after him never solved the problem, because it can't be solved with humans. Vanguard parties and the like have a high probability of failure, no matter what you're trying to implement. It would be great if reformist delusions actually worked. When democracy isn't shifting towards oligarchy or plutocracy, it is at best a tyranny of the ignorant majority. A suboptimal fucked up mess, like everything designed by committee. But it does have potential if you could somehow without detection gut the media and use their hollowed out shell to push a state run re-education campaign. As people proceeded along a gradient of mind expansion and the cultural framework and dialogue shifts, you can put in place structures that inhibit shitty, stupid, myopic, tribal behaviors. You can cripple large corporations that don't play along or take their infrastructure by force.

Funny enough, a large enough corporation with a private army could do the same. But yes, as you said, generally fuck everyone. Look out for people and try to create the ideal, but don't delude yourself into thinking the worker is an inherent ally.

Veeky Forums isn't the place that started internet memes you moron.

and yes, using /pol/ memes means you need to go back there

And, not to mention, that Marx himself hated the capitalist class so much, that anyone who could possibly stand in the way of engendering class consciousness in the working class had to be destroyed by force.

Lumpenproletariat comes to mind.

Marx wasn't right because his concept of "class" doesn't actually exist in reality

And anyone who views all opposing thought as propaganda of their enemy is obviously full of shit
The guy wrote about "workers" while being a jewish neet.

If he was white, he would have written about racial conciousness. But since he's jewish, he has to be an internationalist

Where can I learn the actual mathematics of macroeconomics?

Is Ljungqvist and Sargent any good?

>class doesn't actually exist
nobody is this retarded
>If he was white, he would have written about racial conciousness. But since he's jewish, he has to be an internationalist
oh i see what you're driving at now

I'm not even a marxist, but goddamn, go back to your containment board already

>If he was white, he would have written about racial conciousness. But since he's jewish, he has to be an internationalist
2/10 b8

>But since he's jewish,

Stay in your parallel universe for brainlets

Isn't the way to "get rich" just to get a good job and invest your savings into stocks and shares?

I don't know why society needs hundreds of different "get rich quick" books to explain that simple concept.

>just invest your savings into stocks and shares
yeah bro, just buy some of that enron in 2000, it's such a simple concept amirite?

>Isn't the way to "get rich" just to get a good job and invest your savings into stocks and shares?

Not anymore.
Those who don't own anything mostly won't own anything by the time they die.

Because tribalism.

People see those like Donald Trump who only uses get rich quick schemes to rob others of their money, but they don't realize the reason he can do it is because he was already rich and has many connections. He can screw over the little man because he is an elite. Who are the courts going to listen to a regular man who cant pay to go to court or a man who sues anyone who talks bad about him and doesn't have the money to handle the lawsuit.

Go on

You don't need very advanced math to learn the type of macro that 99% of undergrads cover. If you want current model macro you'll need background in Stochastic Calculus / SDE's, and even then these models aren't very fruitful.

The historical school of economics in Prussia / German Reich was the real deal. How else do you think did Germany establish economic supremacy starting from a point of economic insignificance in an incredibly short time frame? Of course, after the goddamn World War II the remnants of the school were basically obliterated by the US brainwashing scheme installed in order to mould the country to their preference.

Try 99.9%
Only the pure investor class and the investor-administrator class with no bosses above them are capitalists. Everyone else is primarily a worker. The key point is owning economic structures that allow you to make more from other people's labor than from your own.

>How else do you think did Germany establish economic supremacy starting from a point of economic insignificance in an incredibly short time frame?

Industrialization, a high population.
There was no economic school to speak of at that moment.

The historical school of economics already existed at the time of the foundation of the German Reich. And if it were so simple as to introduce industrialization in order to create a superbly strong economy, how come numerous other countries failed to follow suit?

But you're right that in Prussia itself prior to the German unification cameralism was the predominant way of managing state finances. It's depressing to see that in the English wiki, there's not even an article on the topic...

>I never understood what trickle down actually meant
Society A consists of 1000 people, each one living in a tiny mud hut. Everyone suffers hunger. Diseases are frequent, child mortality is high. They all use tools made from stone and wood. Because everybody owns the same, there's no wealth inequality.

Society B consits of 1000 people, 900 people live in flats averaging 60 square meters with electricity, clean water and central heating. Life expectancy is high. People live modern lives. 1 guy is super rich and owns a lot of factories most people work in, and lots of houses whose flats people rent. So there's huge wealth inequality.

Which society do you wanna live in?

Because Americans have been systematically trained to associate anything involving the word liberal with the Democratic Party.

yeah, there are only those two alternatives. poverty and wealth inequality.

consider that one is strongly correlated with the other.

>neoliberalism is the disease of our age
that sounds too simple! i do think we need to, get a better definition of wealth than the GDP.

politicians need to counter wreckless lobbyism

here's a thought i had, i'm not that into economics though.

at some point, we traded with eggs and chickens and other resources, but eventually had too many so it became unmanagable, so we invented money to make that easier.

today we have so much money, that resources can't keep up. i don't know how to halt that kind of development. plus wanting exponential growth, saving where possible and putting immense pressure on the work force is just getting out of hand.
we have a hugeamount of old people, maybe in a few decades when they all die the economy will become smaller again, resolving some of the issues.

>muh wreckless lobbyism

>Hahaha I don't want to talk about a topic even though hypotheses can be framed about it and these hypotheses can be falsified by data, and even though theories are made out of a combination of data and hypotheses in this field.

>This means you have to go to a containment board that talks about these ideas in a decidedly non-serious and bombastic manner and which is filled with people conducting internet propoganda operations from virtually every ideology who are guaranteed to advance poor strawmen arguments about this field in an effort to discredit their opponents.

Fuck off.

The social bargain has two parts: the physical, and the Zero-Sum-Game

I can work as hard as I can, and you can work as hard as you can, and the sum of our labor is less than if we worked together. That is a physical thing: if I can lift 100 Kg and you can lift 100 Kg, alone we are limited to 100Kg, but together we can lift 200Kg. We can be in two different places at the same time. etc...

However, how we divide the returns of that collective labor is a zero-sum-game, where deception meets fairness. There is no physical component to this narrative: it is all about perception.

The problem with our economics is that we intertwine the two. Economics should be about the efficient use of resources to meet common needs. It has become a huge scam to justify winning the zero-sum-game, by pretending the zero-sum-game has the same physical limitations as labor.

Massive strides have been made under every form of civilization, because people still find way to work together because of the physical benefit. Both Capitalism and Communism created great things last century. It used to only fall apart because of the physical limitations of the environment, but for the last 2000 years they fall apart because people are tired of losing the zero-sum-game.

This guy's post is just the kind of sophistry that we expect from those who are trying to scam those who actually do the work, and is more in line with /pol/ than Veeky Forums.

I 'm not sure you understand the concept of zero-sum. In a zero-sum game, the amount of winnings is constant. Like I have 100 lifts, you have 100 lifts, together we help my friend Bob move his piano, which makes your mom mad because she wanted to go shopping.

Physical stuff is constant like this. Objective. Limited. Systems subject to deceit and bad communication is not. You can easily sell something that doesn't even exist.

Consider that you are a full of shit marxist that has no clue what ur talking about huh?

wealth is not a zero sum game...

Yeah, that deceit. That some make loads of money off literally nothing - or sometimes other peoples results even - while the rest supposed to work dutifully. Makes one so damn unmotivated to work and contribute.