118 replies to this topic

[Tang Scholar]

After the recent and ongoing economic uncertainty I tend to think that most economic experts don't know much about the subject.


Most of them act like irresponsible train drivers. They give us an exciting wild ride in a fast steam train on the straight with us in tow. They keep shoveling coal in the furnace to increase the speed but forget to apply the brakes when they come to a curve.

Here you are speaking in general about economists. Oh, well, I would say Economics is not an exact science. It is a social science.

Anyone who trully understands economics would likely be too busy making money to bother with this forum. Time is money.

Mmmm... You have been posting almost twice a day here since you bothered to join us in June. Well, almost anybody can afford to loose a few bucks, right?

[Tang Scholar]

The ratings of Shaolin and Changsham have been plotted on the chart.

I wonder if I will be able to add someone else. The chart is already 49k. Only one k is left.

Attached Files

•  Political_Compass_chart_of_some_CHF_members_improved.doc   49K   8 downloads

[William O'Chee]

The ratings of Shaolin and Changsham have been plotted on the chart.

I wonder if I will be able to add someone else. The chart is already 49k. Only one k is left.

Put me in at x=7 y=2.5

[TengAiHui]

That's interesting. Why don't you fully trust them? Though whom could one fully trust? Not even oneself. There is always marvel and wonder inside any human being.

Because I think most politicians just say what is most convenient for them at that moment. They live in "the spin zone". Everything said is a lie, or someone else is calling it a lie. I once saw a bumper sticker that said, "If you are not aggrevated, then you are not paying attention." That pretty much sums up my attitude. In order to stop being aggrevated, I've stopped paying attention, and now I'm happy living in my localized little world.

[changsham]

The ratings of Shaolin and Changsham have been plotted on the chart.

I wonder if I will be able to add someone else. The chart is already 49k. Only one k is left.

I put in the wrong figures. Mine should be Economic -6.00, Social -2.77. You put me in the opposite field where I should be.

And your right, I have been losing a few bucks. Time here is taking me away from my money making activities. And quite a lot at that. But likely I would be wasting the extra money I would have earned somewhere else if I wasn't here.

[Tang Scholar]

I put in the wrong figures. Mine should be Economic -6.00, Social -2.77. You put me in the opposite field where I should be.

And your right, I have been losing a few bucks. Time here is taking me away from my money making activities. And quite a lot at that. But likely I would be wasting the extra money I would have earned somewhere else if I wasn't here.

Great. I'm sleepy by now, I will move your place tomorrow.

[Tang Scholar]

Changsham data corrected and William O'Chee's data added.

Attached Files

•  Political_Compass_chart_of_some_CHF_members_improved.doc   49K   11 downloads

[mariusj]

I was looking at this test again, and there are these questions that bothers me.

For example

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

But a free market, by definition, does not care if there are monopolies or not, does it? A free market is more of a political existence, while a monopoly is a economic existence - if we were to say yes, a genuine free market requires restriction [restriction of any kind other then the natural barrier of entering/existing] then it would no longer be a genuine free market [since that would require government interference].

This statement by itself is a oxymoron.

[Tang Scholar]

I was looking at this test again, and there are these questions that bothers me.

For example
"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies"
But a free market, by definition, does not care if there are monopolies or not, does it? A free market is more of a political existence, while a monopoly is a economic existence - if we were to say yes, a genuine free market requires restriction [restriction of any kind other then the natural barrier of entering/existing] then it would no longer be a genuine free market [since that would require government interference].

This statement by itself is a oxymoron.

Your point is very, very interesting, and I guess would make economists discuss unendingly. There are real markets and ideal ones. If we were in an ideal market, monopolies, while allowed, would not last for long. Any monopoly would be easily challenged by someone eager to seize the opportunity to offer goods and services in more favourable conditions than the monopoly. This is rather difficult in the real world because it is hard to enter, and already existing monopolies make it still harder.

That is the rationality behind anti-trust laws in that fortress of capitalism which is the U. S. No monopolies are freely allowed even there, there has to be some level of competence.

I guess there has to be some level of intervention. How much? How less? That is the question. Where do you stand? That defines your place in the test.

There is also another aspect of the question. In the real world it is not so easy to draw frontiers between dimensions of reality. Politics and economics are entangled together. To think you can deal with them separately is mistaken, except in an academic isolated environment, and for the sake of analysis. Reality is different. It is dynamic and integrated. Buddhists know...

[MattW]

I guess there has to be some level of intervention. How much? How less? That is the question. Where do you stand? That defines your place in the test.

History says that state intervention in the economy should be kept to an absolute minimum. A state controlled economy has inherent weaknesses, demonstrated not only in modern China's history, but in the UK in the 1970s when Labour were in power. But it also seems a very attractive prospect, as economic conditions are in the hands of the representatives of the people e.t.c, so you can see why lessons from history are not always learned.

[William O'Chee]

One has to be careful about what is meant by State intervention in the economy. There are in fact many ways in which this can occur, and it is important to understand the implications of each.

First, it should be understood that there is no purely free market economy. Governments impose taxes, which influence the decisions made by market participants in lesser or greater ways. Moreover, governments legislate for the behaviour of market participants, for example anti-trust legislation, statutory contract terms in insurance or finance markets, and so on.

At the next level, there is a a range of government activity designed to directly influence the behvaiour of the economy. This can be in the form of grants, subsidies, or investment promotion measures. The latter are usually tied to regional policies. Central bank board which are answerable to government are another example of this.

Beyond this, there may be government statutory corporations like single-desk export sellers and the like. These may be owned by farmers, for example, with boards elected by members, but participation may be compulsory, and the corporation exists by statutory fiat.

Then there are government owned corporations which have board appointed by the government. Many of these exist within free market economies. For example, many utility companies are like this. More significant are state owned banks, since they can control the creation and allocation of credit, and hence have a significant impact on the economy.

Then at the far end of the spectrum you have economies where the real economy is heavily or totally controlled by the government. China is an example of this.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

General Zhaoyun had been giving signs of tiredness, and is also recently wed. There is his university project, which is very demanding.

I do understand that. I wrote that comment before reading his resignation posting and never bothered to come back and edit.

In these circumstances, why suffer little personality clashes like the ones that have recently happened? It seems to me that in other conditions, even with stronger clashes, the General would still be directing CHF.

No doubt. And I fervently hope so. He IS the founder of the forum, after all, and therefor should have had final say in all arguments. Period.

Also: the political leanings shown in the chart have not really stopped interactions or generated bad feelings amongst CHF members.

The chart may actually smooth things over a bit. It certainly helps me understand a little better where people are coming from and we may still have heated arguments over some things, but there is at least that slight increase in understanding.
Without such knowledge, there is only the feeling, often on both sides, that the other person is just an idiot.

I think that, though there have been a few cases of harshness, a clima of tolerance and understanding has been prevalent in CHF in the two years I have been here. It seems that this was not always so, and the present rules of behavior, fruit of past experiences, have contributed a lot to that climate.

I couldn't say one way or the other.

Why do you say that? The people in the Forum are not only historians; I would think the professional historians might be a minority. The strenght of the forum is history, but there is also a strong cultural component. But the thing is, I don't see why you think so few of us seem to understand economics. From the distribution of people in the four areas of the chart? That would not be enough.

I was speaking only of the people already on the chart, and I suppose I should have clarified that better.
However, as I also said, it shouldn't be surprising because this is a History forum, attracting primarily people who are interested in History. People interested in Economics go places designed to attract them. This is Not to suggest that most people here are professional historians. Why would such bother coming here? They usually have other sources, and, I would hope, are at least conversant in the primary language of the nation whose history they are studying.
This is designed for those curious and who speak English. A good resource for those of us who don't speak or read or write much, if any, Chinese.

The General is not gone, he has only resigned the direction. Luckily for us all, he will stay. He has chosen to be in a less demanding position.

So I see, and I am glad.

Edited by Taran ap Dafydd, 04 January 2009 - 04:09 PM.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

I was looking at this test again, and there are these questions that bothers me.

For example

But a free market, by definition, does not care if there are monopolies or not, does it? A free market is more of a political existence, while a monopoly is a economic existence - if we were to say yes, a genuine free market requires restriction [restriction of any kind other then the natural barrier of entering/existing] then it would no longer be a genuine free market [since that would require government interference].

This statement by itself is a oxymoron.

This actually would not have economists discussing it endlessly, as both schools came to an understanding on this. Both theoretically and practically.
Theoretically: A truly "genuine free market" would not have either monopolies or predator companies of any sort.
Practically: A "genuine free market" only remains so as long as predator companies, which Do exist, are restricted from eliminating their competition. Once such predator companies are allowed to establish monopolies, you no longer have a free market at all, but an oligopolistic market, which may, or may not be marginally better than a state-run market.

In any case, neither a state-run market nor an oligopolistic market can effectively serve the consumer and is ultimately self-destructive. For examples, see the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and the economic crashes the immediately preceded America's Anti-trust laws.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

There is also another aspect of the question. In the real world it is not so easy to draw frontiers between dimensions of reality. Politics and economics are entangled together. To think you can deal with them separately is mistaken, except in an academic isolated environment, and for the sake of analysis. Reality is different. It is dynamic and integrated. Buddhists know...

Outside of the realm of politics, economics exists and performs without significant effect From politics.

eg: People hate WalMart for whatever reason. They still shop there and try to get work there in record numbers everywhere that WalMart exists because of economic factors.

When Politics become Law, however, now we get into trouble in economics. eg: The Housing and Urban Development Act and The New Communities Act of 1968 led directly to the USA's current economic crisis.

There are a LOT of examples of both just within the USA, but I am sure you get the picture.

[LongMa]

Outside of the realm of politics, economics exists and performs without significant effect From politics.

eg: People hate WalMart for whatever reason. They still shop there and try to get work there in record numbers everywhere that WalMart exists because of economic factors.

When Politics become Law, however, now we get into trouble in economics. eg: The Housing and Urban Development Act and The New Communities Act of 1968 led directly to the USA's current economic crisis.

There are a LOT of examples of both just within the USA, but I am sure you get the picture.

We had more of a pure market economy in the U.S. in the 1800's..and we had boom and bust cycles every 15 years or so, seriously ones. We don't tend to have that anymore, recessions are very light compared to what they were 150 years ago. Why is that?

Economics is a social science for a reason because you can't quantify human behavior which is the key input to a market. People often do not act rational meaning "to maximize the use of scares resources". If they did always acted so economics would be a "hard science" instead we just use that as a model and say "everything being equal things move to equilibrium" and other things that often do not happen or happen much more slowly or chaotically in the real world.

Then again you gave a good example of "oligopolistic market" which almost always form given the opportunity and these is "definately irrational behavior" that theoretically should not exist.

Politics enters economics (well not the only reason but this is the aspect I'm speaking about) to correct market inefficiencies. caused by human irrationalities. The other time it enters is because humans are social animals, like chimps but more so. Everyone is not capable of surviving in a market situation all the time in a way that we believe is "civilized" to live so we,l as a society, do things to assist those who "fall down", just like chimps will feed hurt/sick chimps in their group (something other lower animals don't tend to think or want to do). Altruism is a not a uniquely human trait, but it is definately a defining human trait whose examples go back to the beginning of recorded history.

ALSO

please help me out for a minute, this being a history site and all. What law or regulation in the The Housing and Urban Development Act and The New Communities Act of 1968 directly made lenders in the first decade of the 21st century not manage their risk in appropriate manner? I'm having trouble finding it...

Also...what mainstream recognized expert on the Housing Crisis who has been published in peer reviewed academic journals stated that this Act lead to the current housing crisis. I would like to review that person's opinion first hand.

Edited by LongMa, 04 January 2009 - 05:19 PM.