NationStates Jolt Archive

How important is Economics to you, especially when you're making decisions or debating the topics discussed on this board?

The reason why I ask this question is simple: I wonder if the opinions, on political matters, of those who consider Economics to be important in the decision-making process differ from those who don't.

A friend of mine brought this to my attention a while back - when asked he said he would vote for the UK Indipendance Party, a very right-wing, fringe party who advocate seperation from the EU, etc... When I asked him why, he said that "you know, when you walk down the high street you see all these homeless people and stuff, and I just think that the country was in a better state before Labour came into power". I pointed out that he was 12 when Labour came to power (lol) and that just the 'look' or the 'feel' of your local high street/area surely isn't enough to go on when making a political decision?
He also said that the EU was a bad thing and that it took too many powers away from the British government. When I pressed him further he didn't know what soverignty we had given up/shared with the EU, nor did he have an explaination, moral, political, economic or otherwise, for why the EU is a 'bad thing'. My friend has never studied or taken an interest in Economics or business.

This also raises an interesting point; is there a correlation perhaps between those who are interested in politics and those that take an interest in or study Economics (or business studies of some sort)? Or can you have an interest in one and not the other? (take the poll and see, assuming the people here are interested in politics ;) )

Poll? I don't see any poll. By the way, while your friend explained it in a poor way, he is right.

Well, one could be interested in personal freedom issues but not economic issues.

I think that no matter what the government, the economic situation varies very little. Sometimes the government has the money, sometimes certain people have the money, sometimes certain nations have the money, but there are always the rich and the poor, no matter how socialist a country tries to be. Every economic solution is transient, so economics affect my political conversations very little.

I take the economic perspective to a large degree in my thoughts on american politics.

For instance, one reason I am so opposed to the bush administration is that it's economic policies are short sighted rubbish that may well lead the country into a disaster.

Some examples are:
Bush tax cuts which were sold as "economic stimululs" even though their windfall landed overwhelmingly in the hands of those with a low marginal propensity to consume.
Bush tax policy that favors the taxing of wages over the taxing of passive income.

Bush fiscal irresponsibility, the insurmountable deficit, its implications for the future of american finances.

He also said that the EU was a bad thing and that it took too many powers away from the British government. When I pressed him further he didn't know what soverignty we had given up/shared with the EU, nor did he have an explaination, moral, political, economic or otherwise, for why the EU is a 'bad thing'. My friend has never studied or taken an interest in Economics or business.
No one put a gun to Britains head to join the European Community. Or the EU. Britain wanted to join.

This also raises an interesting point; is there a correlation perhaps between those who are interested in politics and those that take an interest in or study Economics (or business studies of some sort)? Or can you have an interest in one and not the other? (take the poll and see, assuming the people here are interested in politics ;) )
Yes there is.

I think that no matter what the government, the economic situation varies very little. Sometimes the government has the money, sometimes certain people have the money, sometimes certain nations have the money, but there are always the rich and the poor, no matter how socialist a country tries to be. Every economic solution is transient, so economics affect my political conversations very little.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree. There's never going to be a perfect economic system, no matter what. Sure, communism looks good on paper, but does it work? No. You'll always have different social and economic classes. There will always be homeless. There will always be the rich.

ah sh*t! spent so long on the poll u lot posted before i could finish it! :headbang:

ah sh*t! spent so long on the poll u lot posted before i could finish it! :headbang:
And you missed an option. I understand economics (imho), consider it important, but don't use it to back up every political opinion I have. I also know quite a few professional economists, and they pretty much feel the same. :p

No one put a gun to Britains head to join the European Community. Or the EU. Britain wanted to join.

Yes there is.

care to elaborate on your arguements?

I take the economic perspective to a large degree in my thoughts on american politics.

For instance, one reason I am so opposed to the bush administration is that it's economic policies are short sighted rubbish that may well lead the country into a disaster.

Some examples are:
Bush tax cuts which were sold as "economic stimululs" even though their windfall landed overwhelmingly in the hands of those with a low marginal propensity to consume.
Bush tax policy that favors the taxing of wages over the taxing of passive income.

Bush fiscal irresponsibility, the insurmountable deficit, its implications for the future of american finances.

im agreeing with this dude - economic arguements can either benefit in the short run (tax breaks, increased borrowing, lower interest rates, etc) or the long run (increased govt spending on education and training, maintaining a budget balance, and keeping the balance of trade positive to name but a few). The Bush administration has opted almost completely, to my limited knowledge, for short run, high gain (to themselves and the american rich) economic policies. I personally would like to see the UK integrate more with the EU, perhaps in the future becoming a federal state, because I choose to believe that the short run problems or disbenefits (benefits lost by not taking the 'Bush-style' short-run-policies route) are outweighed by the long term Economic benefits for the whole of the EU.

And you missed an option. I understand economics (imho), consider it important, but don't use it to back up every political opinion I have. I also know quite a few professional economists, and they pretty much feel the same. :p

sorry, but i was trying to generalise some general points of view. Plus im very tired!

political issues and social issues are compleatly differant entities that things like the political spectrum try to tie togeather

imho, we should have two seperate boards that are democratically elected to work togeather.

lol, but thats very idealistic of me

He also said that the EU was a bad thing and that it took too many powers away from the British government. When I pressed him further he didn't know what soverignty we had given up/shared with the EU, nor did he have an explaination, moral, political, economic or otherwise, for why the EU is a 'bad thing'. My friend has never studied or taken an interest in Economics or business.
The politics of anti imigration/international cooperation are based on a lack of understanding of economics. For example the UK currently has a shortage of unskilled labour and some skilled labour and therefore needs immigration if the economy is to expand - it was the same in the 50s when we invited people from the Carribean to immigrate. Isolationism ignores the fact that exports are vital to an economy. For example the US steel tarrifs are there to protect an industry that has failed to modernise at the same rate as the rest of the world. That doesn't cure the problem, just postpone it.

This also raises an interesting point; is there a correlation perhaps between those who are interested in politics and those that take an interest in or study Economics (or business studies of some sort)? Or can you have an interest in one and not the other?
People don't always but it is generally seen as vital to a true understanding. All great political movements in the modern era have had an economic analysis as their root - Adam Smith's writings for capitalism, Marx and Engels economic writings for Communism and Socialism for example.

Economic issues are very related to political issues. After all, one of the main reasons for political systems has to do with money, either protecting it, or growing it.

Economic issues are very related to political issues. After all, one of the main reasons for political systems has to do with money, either protecting it, or growing it.

Bingo! You get a smiley! :D

Bingo! You get a smiley! :D
I hope I'm not feeding red meat to those of the economic determinism crowd. There are other reasons for a government to form, like protection, or nationalism.

I hope I'm not feeding red meat to those of the economic determinism crowd. There are other reasons for a government to form, like protection, or nationalism.

I'm not of the economic determinism crowd.

Well, when I was young and stupid (I'm older now), I believed that money just got in the way of politics and society. I looked at ancient cultures and old kingdoms and thought how cool it was that Kings and Emperors could effect a nation without worrying about middling things like economics.

Well, after a touch of education, and a little maturing, I found that to my discomfort a great many things indeed are products of the economic situation; including government policies. I studied like crazy to see just how much economics influenced governments in the past; things you think you know, the civil war was about slavery...right? Now I believe that economic factors drive a great number of the old events we attribute to great leaders and patriotism of old.

A good point well made.

I'm interested in both economics and politics, but I'm studying astronomy and geology at uni.

Economics is central to any system involving the distribution of finite resources. In other words, everything.

I'm not of the economic determinism crowd.
Good. For a moment, I feared you were.

the ability to generate wealth is not finite.

Most people have a very shallow grasp of economics, they only parrot what their party tells them to. Most pople do not make their party idntification as a result of economic policy, they simply adopt the economic policy of their party. This is in large part because economics requires effort to understand: It is not taught in most public schools and is often glossed over in college GE. To understand it requires an effort that most people have little interest and/or time to pursue.

Imagine national voting on what is included in college level abstract philosophy courses. Carry that over to economics and you can see why voting on economics is absurd for your average citizen.

I take the economic perspective to a large degree in my thoughts on american politics.

For instance, one reason I am so opposed to the bush administration is that it's economic policies are short sighted rubbish that may well lead the country into a disaster.

Some examples are:
Bush tax cuts which were sold as "economic stimululs" even though their windfall landed overwhelmingly in the hands of those with a low marginal propensity to consume.
Bush tax policy that favors the taxing of wages over the taxing of passive income.

Bush fiscal irresponsibility, the insurmountable deficit, its implications for the future of american finances.
One quick question for you? If the Bush administration's economic policies are so bad why is the unemployment rate now 2 points lower then it was under the Clinton administration? Why if Pres. Bush inherited a slumping economy did his tax cuts revive it? Why should we punish the money earners in this country? I feel that economics is very important but over all the moral state of a nation and the way it handles itself militarily is by far more important...

economics and politics are largely overlapping. an economic system only exists within a particular political system that creates, defends, and maintains it. and a political system operating under normal circumstances is largely contained by its economic system's demands and rules. bring on the study of political economy.

One quick question for you? If the Bush administration's economic policies are so bad why is the unemployment rate now 2 points lower then it was under the Clinton administration? Why if Pres. Bush inherited a slumping economy did his tax cuts revive it? Why should we punish the money earners in this country? I feel that economics is very important but over all the moral state of a nation and the way it handles itself militarily is by far more important...
He also has the biggest deficit in US history having inherited a health deficit. Basically the entire US economy is on credit and that is a potential disasterous problem.

He also has the biggest deficit in US history having inherited a health deficit. Basically the entire US economy is on credit and that is a potential disasterous problem.

You and Peardon should check out this (http://www.bushgame.com) site if you already havent - its interesting.

nice :D

You and Peardon should check out this (http://www.bushgame.com) site if you already havent - its interesting.

Voltron is sweet

Yes, to some extent. No point having a happyland society when everybodies starving and dying of hunger.