Economics, Economies, Employment, Equality, Etc.

[GGT]

Shall we suss out particulars from the many thread overlaps?

Instead of making a poll I'll start this thread by posing some basic questions that can't be answered simply Yes/No, but require real discussion, and debate:

Do you think academic economists are studying and analyzing the right things, as they relate to your own experiences in the economy?
Whose/which ideology should politicians follow when creating economic-related legislation?
Do you believe you're an active part of the economy, or an unwitting victim?

And here's a good one -- do you think Pope Francis is right to bring morality and ethical issues into EEE...or is that Marxism?

[GGT]

Okay, 28 views and no replies means my title sucks, because I know damn well people have opinions on Economics, Economies, Employment, Equality, and Ethics.

I thought people might begin with their personal definitions of, and attitudes toward, any/every thing related to "Economics", and eventually the discussion would broaden, and move forward. But if the title is too broad or open-ended, maybe a rephrasing is in order?

hmmm It's rather hard to divorce lay definitions from political or academic definitions, but that's where I was going....

in other words, "Economic Populism" that reflects self-governance of, by, and for the People, according to the US constitution.

[Dreadnaught]

I would swear you/someone else made a highly similar thread about academic economists...

http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=2975

But now that I read that, maybe not similar. I'll bite: my main personal definition of economics is that incentives matter.

[GGT]

Duh, of course incentives matter. Which group of people carry the greatest weight and incentives? The top 10% or the bottom 90%?

[Being]

... my main personal definition of economics is that incentives matter.

Provoking things in the wrong direction usually spoils the soup.

[GGT]

Who are the provocateurs, and what are they incentivizing?


Yeah, I realize there's an overlap between macro/micro, international/national, and institutional/individual 'economics'. Even Academic Economics has cognitive, behavioral, cultural, political, and ethical elements....that's why it's a soft science.

I've been mulling this over since the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis and The Great Recession, recent deficit and debt ceiling debates, budget impasses, sequester austerity, and government shut-downs. We have elected politicians, on important committees, who want to treat the (US) economy from a Home Economics angle. Even though that's a stupid way to run a country, they have enough active base constituents to support them. ie, TEA (taxed-enough-already) Party people, who also wave signs about not touching "their" SS or Medicare.

It struck me that all 'economics' is based on trust or fear....and the New Economy is challenging both.

*Including the Euro Zone*

[GGT]

Was adding that extra "E" for Ethics the paralyzing problem for forum ideologues, because it means Free Market Capitalism can't work in a vacuum ("unfettered"), without some Legal Regulation from government agencies?

Many people are opposed to anything remotely related to economic Nationalism or Populism, and refer to that as Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc. Others are opposed to government intervention because they're convinced "teh gummit" is a huge, bumbling entity that can't do anything well.

*I'm surprised by the lack of replies*

[Loki]

Here's a better question for you: what exactly are economists studying now? Once you answer that, you can decide whether it's the right thing or not.

[GGT]

Here's a better question for you: what exactly are economists studying now? Once you answer that, you can decide whether it's the right thing or not.

That depends on the economist, their sub-speciality, and employer. ie, Kellogg's employs "economists" in agriculture, marketing, new product development, logistics, transportation, international exchanges, and accounting.

Their bottom line is growing their business model and increasing corporate/shareholder profits, no matter what "unintended consequences" come along. Plenty of "right things" to debate here, from using dirty/cheap energy, corporate tax credits, international trade agreements, to exploiting human labor. Take your pick, then make a stance.

<IMO, we need to re-evaluate "Free Market" capitalism and globalization lifting all boats, as promised by corporate entities and financial industries, using weak/unproven economic theories. But that's me getting ahead of my own thread.>

[Loki]

So economists are studying just about everything, yet they're not studying the right things?

Incidentally, just which economists are interested in "growing their business model"?

And just which economic theory claims that globalization benefits every individual?

Your debate seems to be with yourself, not with any mythical economist whose characteristics are possessed by no one.

[GGT]

Loki, I was asking people to give their own perspectives -- what/whose information shapes their views, if or how it's different from academic or political groups (or media coverage) -- and discuss their personal reactions of trust/mistrust, faith or fear, etc. in todays' world....where every nation, government, group entity, and individual is grappling with these E's.

The discussion wouldn't be with myself if there were more replies, but it's a super broad conceptual "topic" that I didn't frame very well. For example, you went straight to "right" theories but skipped the more difficult part -- explaining how you reached the (personal) conclusion of what's "right" in the first place.

[Loki]

You're asking people to give their own perspectives on factual information that they probably don't have access to? Why not ask about their own perspectives on whether gravity functions as advertised?

As for the last point, you seem to have a pronounced misunderstanding of what science does, even a social science. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between empirical and normative fields of inquiries.

[GGT]

No, I'm asking people to describe/discuss their personal attitudes toward, and perspectives of, the very broad category of "Economics". Directly or indirectly, everyone is impacted by the Es in the title. Another E for EVERYONE!

There is more access to "factual information" today, than any time in history, via the internet. Even folks without home computers can use Public Libraries, or smart phones....and quite easily find information previously limited to universities, academics, or governments. Hell, we can now read the minutes from Federal Reserve meetings, see charts at BLS or CBO, or review centuries of US Census data with a simple click.

Glad you mentioned Gravity "as advertised"....because I'm curious how people that denounce Science (even Evolution) get elected to offices that make Science, Technology, or Health policy. They're obviously speaking to a political "base", but that doesn't explain how that "base" is informed or motivated.

[GGT]

This forum's activity could be used as a "minority report" example. Just look at the active threads, megathreads, or where Kathaksung places his posts. It's all related to Economics in some form or fashion, because it involves money, power, control, work, labor, freedom, quality of life, even life itself.

People in "open and democratic" societies should be ready and willing to take on these conceptual, ethical principles in ways that closed societies can't. A person in China or North Korea can't even explain why they believe in their national leaders, or how/why they came to disagree or dissent.

I may suck at making threads or OP titles, but that shouldn't excuse the lack of replies here. What's up with that?

[GGT]

OK, here's something more specific:

There's a 9 county-wide contamination disaster in West Virginia, affecting some 500,000 individuals (and even more businesses)....after a private chemical company leaked ~ 10,000 gallons of coal-washing chemicals into their water supply. Tap water can't be used for anything but flushing toilets, not even showers or washing dishes. Homeland Security, National Guard, and other emergency responders are trucking in bottled water, while public officials are testing/flushing water pipes....and investigating how/why this happened.

West Virginia is a "coal" state. They rely on the industry for direct and in-direct employment, but don't want that industry to exploit the health of its workers (miners) or contaminate their air or water, in exchange for paychecks. They also don't want "over-regulation" or environmental policy to eradicate the entire coal industry, as lobbyists and politicians describe.

Science shows carbon-based energy is a fossil (in more ways than one), and there's probably no such thing as "clean coal" technology, no matter how many scrubbers or chemicals are used. Mountain-top scaling isn't much better than deep mining, either. But nations like China are hungry for coal....and US coal-states are hungry for jobs.

Whom do you suppose they believe and trust will help them protect jobs, incomes, families, and public health/safety, all at the same time? Are they making decisions based on immediate financial needs, or long-term sustainability? Do they have all the pertinent facts, and fully understand them? Or do they feel their state is being "targeted by outsiders", forced into economic ruin by over-regulating government agencies or union entities (aka Lewk's Lib'ruls)?



And if you don't like that example....what do you think of December's economic report and 6.7% Unemployment rate?

[Dreadnaught]

I am hoping the December report will be revised upward, as I believe some of the ADP data was encouraging. Otherwise it's just same-old same-old in the Obama economy.

[Being]

OK, here's something more specific:

There's a 9 county-wide contamination disaster in West Virginia, affecting some 500,000 individuals (and even more businesses)....after a private chemical company leaked ~ 10,000 gallons of coal-washing chemicals into their water supply. Tap water can't be used for anything but flushing toilets, not even showers or washing dishes. Homeland Security, National Guard, and other emergency responders are trucking in bottled water, while public officials are testing/flushing water pipes....and investigating how/why this happened.

West Virginia is a "coal" state. They rely on the industry for direct and in-direct employment, but don't want that industry to exploit the health of its workers (miners) or contaminate their air or water, in exchange for paychecks. They also don't want "over-regulation" or environmental policy to eradicate the entire coal industry, as lobbyists and politicians describe.

Science shows carbon-based energy is a fossil (in more ways than one), and there's probably no such thing as "clean coal" technology, no matter how many scrubbers or chemicals are used. Mountain-top scaling isn't much better than deep mining, either. But nations like China are hungry for coal....and US coal-states are hungry for jobs.

Whom do you suppose they believe and trust will help them protect jobs, incomes, families, and public health/safety, all at the same time? Are they making decisions based on immediate financial needs, or long-term sustainability? Do they have all the pertinent facts, and fully understand them? Or do they feel their state is being "targeted by outsiders", forced into economic ruin by over-regulating government agencies or union entities (aka Lewk's Lib'ruls)?



And if you don't like that example....what do you think of December's economic report and 6.7% Unemployment rate?

Because the company is so small, it is the responsibility of tax payers (federal wide) to clean up yet another mess that exists because the company cut staff to the point safety was delegated to maintenance personnel. Self regulation, you know?

[Being]

I am hoping the December report will be revised upward, as I believe some of the ADP data was encouraging. Otherwise it's just same-old same-old in the Obama economy.

ADP does not even manage their own accounts adequately. Go ahead and rely on them...I will bet against you.

[Dreadnaught]

I was merely commenting on the size of their data footprint, but okay.

[GGT]

I am hoping the December report will be revised upward, as I believe some of the ADP data was encouraging. Otherwise it's just same-old same-old in the Obama economy.

I was merely commenting on the size of their data footprint, but okay.

Well, that's a nice example of what I was asking....but not at the deeper or more comprehensive level I'd hoped for.

Sure, we can agree/disagree with monthly job reports or Unemployment rates, depending on the data and analysis....but it's just as important how it's framed, and by whom. Biases are a 'natural' part of the Human Condition -- even academic communities can become political entities when their "studies" are published as "science" by big donors with an agenda; "News" can be overly-influenced by mega-publishers like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, GE, Google, or.....

It's sad when Bill Nye (The Science Guy) even needs to plan a public debate on the topic of climate science/global warming with Creationists who "believe" that planet Earth is only a few thousand years old. It's even more disturbing when those people are considered "scientists" teaching at University levels, and educating convincing the public that "Drill, Baby Drill" isn't just good science, but great economics.

[GGT]

Because the company is so small, it is the responsibility of tax payers (federal wide) to clean up yet another mess that exists because the company cut staff to the point safety was delegated to maintenance personnel. Self regulation, you know?

Self-regulation is a Libertarian ideal that can't/shouldn't be used, in current time, to make public policy. It's nice enough philosophy that might work in the distant future...but doesn't consider today's reality, in real time.

That brings us back to the beginning: how people put all these disparate compartments together, even when -- or because -- it challenges long-held personal, conventional, or institutional beliefs?

[Loki]

Apparently someone with different normative beliefs than you cannot, by definition, be a scientist.

[GGT]

Apparently someone with different normative beliefs than you cannot, by definition, be a scientist.

What does that mean, coming from the guy who mentioned "gravity as advertised"?


Edit: And no, I don't consider Creationists as Scientists. Do you?

[GGT]

Other states (Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky) are now closing their water intake valves, in response to West Virginian's water contamination. Compartmentalization has its own limitations: a river/reservoir water problem can't be solved by flushing it downstream....that just puts it in someone else's back yard. NIMBY?

What is it about these EEEEE things that appear to be "solutions", instead of the myopic (or self-destructive) measures that they are? It's not relegated to the USA. China is also busy polluting air and water, and exploiting human labor, under the "principle" of national economic growth.

Hello?

[Loki]

What does that mean, coming from the guy who mentioned "gravity as advertised"?


Edit: And no, I don't consider Creationists as Scientists. Do you?

Someone who's a creationist can still be a scientist, even if creationism is not a science.

[GGT]

Someone who's a creationist can still be a scientist, even if creationism is not a science.

Gosh, this reminds me of the debates at the old forum, where people thought public schools should teach Creationism/Intelligent Design in science classes....not just science teachers, but entire school districts. Recall the Dover, PA case?

Segue back to current events in West Virginia regarding contaminated water, and how people conceptualize all the E's -- especially when there's conflict. It might make local residents "feel" better to flush the chemicals downstream, but it just contaminates other people's water, and doesn't address the broader problems inherent with coal, or a coal-economy town.

As I said before, there are elected "representatives" who are science deniers making public policy! Their political party leadership doesn't even bother to challenge the kooks or crazies, but puts them on national committees dealing with Education, Environment, Energy, Etc.

I'm just trying to figure out why the US (in general) seems to have a penchant for compartmentalizing and disconnecting all these integrated E's, even when it's detrimental. And I'm interested in any personal ideas posted here.

[Flixy]

Well, he's not wrong. Outside evolution or archeology, a creationist can perfectly well be a scientist. Kepler discovered his laws of astrophysics because he was a devout man, and thought by understanding the universe he'd come closer to understanding God's plan. I would call Kepler a scientist, even though he was a creationist.

[GGT]

And other scientists in history were either considered heretics or lunatics. But that was long ago and far away, during the Dark Ages, when people looked to biblical/religious dogma to explain everything....even Flat Earth. The Enlightenment put all that to rest, right?

Apparently not, since we have a small (yet influential and powerful) group of people denouncing carbon-dating, climate science, Evolution....even birth control! They're the ones caught on tape saying things like, "We are children of God, descendants of Adam and Eve...not from apes, or Adam and Steve". They don't believe in reproductive science or birth control. They believe that any non-heterosexual or extra-marital sex is sinful, blasphemous, immoral.

Or they make speeches saying methane gas is just cows farting, or more carbon dioxide is needed to feed trees/plants, or global warming and climate science is just the biggest hoax perpetuated by SSSocialist left wing lib'ruls....because they either aren't reading "The Scriptures" properly, or don't believe in FREEEEDOM!

[Loki]

You seem to once again be conflating empirical claims and normative ones...Saying that extra-marital sex is immoral does not in any way go against scientific evidence...

[GGT]

You seem to once again be conflating empirical claims and normative ones...Saying that extra-marital sex is immoral does not in any way go against scientific evidence...

It was used as a rhetorical example, to question how people manage to influence public opinion and policy to such a great degree -- even when the "general population" disagrees with their ideologies, whether they're elected to public office or not -- and how people decide whom to trust.