Economics is the most boring shit in the world

I have a theory for why economics is so boring: It's useless. Completely, totally, like-applying-rogaine-thrice-daily-to-affected-region useless. You can't use any of the knowledge you gain from it for anything other than making people believe that its useful and in doing so screwing them out of whatever value they have built up in their lives. It is a scam. Tell me, oh exalted economists who know many complicated-sounding words, what could go wrong if we let people create their own currencies and allowed whatever currency people liked/trusted the best to become the currency they use? Then we could completely do away with that wasteful instution called the Federal Reserve.

A global economy is just a bunch of local economies looked at from a larger point of view. So explain to me now, oh complicated-word speakers, what could go wrong in local markets if the government does absolutely nothing to the economy? The price of local crops will not be affected - the only thing that affects their price is the scarcity/abundance based on weather conditions in the area. The price of local natural resources to build houses will not be affected - the price of local trees depends on their scarcity/abundance in the area. If we allow currencies to "compete" then we don't have to worry about some Federal Reserve devaluing a currency... because if it did, people would stop using it. So the basic necessities - food and shelter - will not be affected in the slieghtest by any economic work done by the government therefore economics is useless and therefore it's boring.

Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you master it you could possibly become a very wise, rich investor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may think economics is boring but that does not mean it is useless. People around the globe use it every day to make decisions and improve our society. Granted we live in a complex society, but life spans are longer than they have ever been. There are more people on the globe today than at any other time in history due in no small part by mans ability to use commerce to his advantage.

Economics is more than words, it uses words to describe behaviors and events. I think that is what the language is supposed to do for us. It is not the fault of economics or those that study and use economics everyday that you do not understand.

If you want to go back to the days before modern economics, you can do so. But it will be a lonely world as most of us like the modern advantages our economic system provides us. Those good old days really were not so good especially when you compare them to our current standards of living. You want to go back to Laissez-faire, go to India and live as a average Indian worker for a few years and then come back and tell me how much you love Laissez-faire.

 

lol@joethinkingindiaisacapitalistcountry

 

The idea of having competing currencies was advocated by Austrian economist F.A. Hayek near the end of his life...for reasons he explains in this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg&feature=related

In a sense, you could say that the people of Zimbabwe were saved from their own government's hyperinflation by the huge black market in US dollars.

 

Good link Carcano - Hayek was a bit hard to understand but I got the message.

I think I'm getting closer to the source of my repulsion to economics. Many economists - even some austrian schoolers - are not "playing by ear." It is more appropriate to say they are playing by formula.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to say that Jimi Hendrix was thinking about scales and music theory when he was playing at woodstock? He wasn't thinking that it would sound good to resolve on a G major chord because he was in a C minor scale in a mixolydian mode... He was just playing whatever he thought sounded bitchin' at that moment.

I think many people have gotten up their own asses with economic theory and have forgotten how simple it is. I agree that currencies make trading goods and services easier - so let's use them. Why do we have to use ONE currency that the government tells us we have to use? That is by definition a monopoly. We're big kids now... I think we can handle choosing which currency we like best.

 

Exactly, but another point is this: we can argue statistics and numbers, but economics is just a science. It can be useful, but we should never use it to justify the stripping of liberty, as Joe would like. Joe doesn't care about higher taxes or more regulations if it means the statistics show this or that. I do care.....liberty is more important, and only laissez-faire capitalism is true liberty.

If we didn't care about liberty, then why not go with a corporatist-Fascist economic policy, or "Third Way"? That works! It cuts unemployment, too, Joe.

 

I'm not trying to target Joepistole or anyone here at this forum - I'm just talking about a general trend I've noticed in economic enthusiasts.

How would you define "liberty" Norsefire?

 

Liberty requires two elements, and leftist liberals only like to claim one and ignore the other.

Liberty requires both freedom and autonomy/independence. This means that you need to be free to choose with whom to associate, how to associate, and with whom and how to exchange. Economic freedom and social freedom aren't just good buddies - - they're one in the same.

People like to say that "no man is an island" and that "you can't be independent", but this either means that they are deliberately misconstruing the argument, or they just don't understand. I am not saying that people won't rely on each other or co-operate, or have obligations to each other.......I am only saying that they should be able to choose with whom to co-operate, and under what conditions, voluntarily and privately. This is the basis of the free market.

You interact with people you want to interact with, you keep your earnings from your source of income and "vote" with your money: you spend on what you want. And your property is your property; and you "live and let live". That is the foundation of liberty, and that describes laissez-faire capitalism.

The government does have a role, but it isn't to interfere in the market. The government's role is to protect your property, your right to life and liberty, enforce contracts, adjudicate disputes, protect intellectual property, uphold the law and maintain the courts, and defend the borders. The rest falls on individuals and on the states.


People like to say that under a laissez-faire setting, you "aren't free from poverty"....but they don't realize that there is no such thing as "freedom from poverty". Poverty is the lack of resources and capital, and that's an individual problem that individuals need to solve, through self-responsibility. And you are free to donate and help one another.

People don't have a "right" to resources.

 

I gotta say that that sounds reasonable. I think that idea of liberty also strikes fear in a lot of people who don't have the confidence in themselves or others to be able to make it on their own. But people do amazing things when shit gets real.

Freedom would include the opportunity to experience poverty if one wished. I think a lot of people don't like freedom because it's too free for them. Freedom scares a lot of people. Freedom is inclusive of all opposites: poverty/wealth, inclusion/exclusion, charity/greed etc.

One issue that I have with many laissez-faire supporters though is the issue of environmental awareness. I think the government should also enforce, along with protection of property, protection of the greater property that is our shared ecosystem. No one owns the air we breathe - for free - or the sun or the oceans (at least they shouldn't.) I don't trust people to take the initiative to find out if the businesses they use produce their products with environmentally ethical practices.

If we fuck up our environment to the point that humans can't survive or are greatly hindered then also the economy won't survive or will be greatly hindered. Environmental awareness enforcement will ensure that the stage in which the economy acts is kept clean and stable for all people. It's like making sure the game board on which people play the economy game is kept in tact.

 

I think you'll have to agree that governments (and people in general) in developed nations have made GREAT strides in that area. True, we still have problems - but contrast today with just 75 years ago. Back then, smokestacks dumped TONS of dangerous chemicals into the air each day and factories/plants simply dumped their wastes into the nearest stream - and no one really cared or was the least concerned about it.

Even China, one of the WORST polluters on the planet, has recognized they have a serious problem and are making efforts to clean up their air and water.

 

I agree Sandy... an thats perty much the path God has chosen for me to use my free-will to acheive.!!!


A-Man.TTT

 

Fail.

 

If Economics were completely useless, why is there a field of quantitative finance? And why do quantitative financial analysts make so much money?

 

How many economists saw the current crisis comming?

 

Yes there were economists and others who predicted the financial collapse of 2008. How many, I don't know and don't care to count. But it is sufficient there were many folks knowledgable of economics including some in this forum who saw the collapse of 2008 coming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magazine/17pessimist-t.html

And there people who see another collapse coming if nothing is done to fix the financial system. The financial system today remains at risk because the problems that caused the first crash have not been remedied. The Democrats in congress are currently trying to pass some meaningful reforms. However, it is not suprising to see Republicans and the financial industry fighting reform at every corner.

 

Why do astrologers and psychics make so much money?

 

Wouldn't it maybe be a good idea to listen to those economists? Peter Schiff was one of those economists.

And Joepistole, could you begin your sentences with "I believe" or something similar so people understand that these are your beliefs and that you are in fact not completely certain?

 

I dont understand the music analogy as it applies to economics. As with any skill enormous effort is made to appear effortless, so its not that Hendrix was un-disciplined in the basics, rather that his basic musical skills had been mastered so well as to become intuitive. Anything weird or unconventional in music is only effective if it has a conventional context to create a contrast.

The important thing to remember in economics is that money is no more than a medium. It starts getting complicated when people start thinking they can create wealth by manipulating the medium of wealth.

Its this tinkering with the parameters of the medium which creates the volatility investors love so much. If the market doesnt boom and bust you have little opportunity to buy low and sell high.