NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people on NSG confuse the term economist with libertarian. Many on here believe that economists are right wing 'fuck the poor' types of people, who caused this whole crisis and blahdiblahdiblah. I found these whilst doing research for an essay:

http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/
http://www.mises.org/story/2318

(note, surveys done BEFORE the credit crisis)

"71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government. Support for these positions is even stronger among economists with academic affiliations, and stronger still among economists with elite academic affiliations."

Also note that this was a survey done in the US, seen as one of the hotbeds of right wing economic thinking.

but I want to blame academics for things :(

I'd always thought an economist was someone who made theories on the economy and gave advice on economic police, that sort of thing.

Just blame the Jews, it's easier.

I'd always thought an economist was someone who made theories on the economy and gave advice on economic police, that sort of thing.

Nah, they're people who rob from the poor and give to the rich. Like a bunch of reverse Robin Hoods.

Nah, they're people who rob from the poor and give to the rich. Like a bunch of reverse Robin Hoods.
I never thought that they'd be exclusively from one political ideology or another.

Just blame the Jews, it's easier.

But I've been blaming the Russians all this time! Are you telling me I'm wrong?:(

I never thought that they'd be exclusively from one political ideology or another.

A few on NSG seemed to think so, OK I exaggerate a bit. But they thought the vast majority were.

But I've been blaming the Russians all this time! Are you telling me I'm wrong?:(
Russian Jews.

Interesting that one of the articles comes from the Mises Institute, though.

(I love the way the far-right libertarians call anything non-libertarian 'socialist')

I know anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify in this debate, but from the one economics course I've taken, yes the free-marketeer 'fuck the poor' (but said in a nicer way of course) mantra was the pretty predominant message.

Like the others who posted I never thought economist's were right wing, just that the good ones were:P

Like the others who posted I never thought economist's were right wing, just that the good ones were:P
Foolish person. Nothing right-wing can be good.

:p

Interesting that one of the articles comes from the Mises Institute, though.

(I love the way the far-right libertarians call anything non-libertarian 'socialist')

I know anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify in this debate, but from the one economics course I've taken, yes the free-marketeer 'fuck the poor' (but said in a nicer way of course) mantra was the pretty predominant message.

Thing is, when you learn economics, you don't really learn much, or anything about redistribution of wealth (unless it's something specifically linking inequality and the performance of the economy), more to do with the production of wealth. The former is seen as more of a political matter, and a moral matter, and it is an important aspect of economics that value judgements is not something the subject of economics is trying to answer. It may try and answer whether it's optimal or efficient for an economy to redistribute (with the answer usually being that it is, at least somewhat), but that doesn't mean that they're trying to answer whether you actually should, just what its effects are for the economy.

Foolish person. Nothing right-wing can be good.

:p

No no you missed out the not, 'nothing not right wing can be good :)

No no you missed out the not, 'nothing not right wing can be good :)
Ok.

Nothing not not right wing can be good.

Ok.

Nothing not not right wing can be good.

no, nothing not not not...

I was being silly anyway, obviously both left and right have their flaws and strong points.

Russian Jews.

Genius. :hail:

I'll start blaming them immediately.

Interesting that one of the articles comes from the Mises Institute, though.


Btw, the Mises Institute source was actually a secondary, not a primary source of any survey.

Just blame the Jews, it's easier.

that's what i'm talking about. amazingly versatile people, the jews. capable of being blamed for everything from the most mundane problems to full-scale international crises. suspiciously versatile, one might say...

The ultimate question is, who do we blame for the Jews existing? God? What if you're an atheist? Darwin? And Darwin has a huge rabbi beard that makes him look Jewish! The plot thickens!

The ultimate question is, who do we blame for the Jews existing? God? What if you're an atheist? Darwin? And Darwin has a huge rabbi beard that makes him look Jewish! The plot thickens!

So... Let me get this straight:

Darwin was a Jewish Rabbi who is using his ultimate powers of telepathy to command the world-wide Jewish plot to eventually take over the world and circumcise us all?

The ultimate question is, who do we blame for the Jews existing? God? What if you're an atheist? Darwin? And Darwin has a huge rabbi beard that makes him look Jewish! The plot thickens!
Indeed.

We need to be wary of all those with beards, as they might be Jewish, as well as those without, because they also might be Jewish.

Indeed.

We need to be wary of all those with beards, as they might be Jewish, as well as those without, because they also might be Jewish.

What about the clean shaven Jews?

So... Let me get this straight:

Darwin was a Jewish Rabbi who is using his ultimate powers of telepathy to command the world-wide Jewish plot to eventually take over the world and circumcise us all?

All you need to do is to prove that Darwin would get a massive profit out of this, and you may have found the cause of all world problems!

All you need to do is to prove that Darwin would get a massive profit out of this, and you may have found the cause of all world problems!

Afterwards, he'd use his telepathic power to create banks all over the world... Banks run by Jews! And then, they'll offer massive loans with incredible interest rates! And one-fourth of the profit will be sent to Darwin.

And putting all of your money in a bank will be mandatory by law.

Economists don't believe anything, they just make it up as they go along.

"71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government. Support for these positions is even stronger among economists with academic affiliations, and stronger still among economists with elite academic affiliations."

Also note that this was a survey done in the US, seen as one of the hotbeds of right wing economic thinking.
Leftist academics? Quelle shocker!

And of course economists are in favor of greater government involvement in the economy. What would a laissez-faire economist do with his time? Spend time writing theories about how people would be far better off if he just kept his damn mouth shut and got a degree in an actual science?

my degree at uni was an Economics BscEcon, and i'm a left-wing loon *does crazy left-wing stuff*

not that i actually finished the degree, mind... >.>

Just blame the Jews, it's easier.

Ironically, our (New Zealand) new Prime Minister is Jewish and worked for Merryl Lynch. Co-incidence? I think not! He's also filthy rich.

The devil is in the details, though. I don't think anyone could argue high income inequality is a desirable thing; even those of us on the laissez-faire side of things agree that it's not at all a good situation but also emphasize that income inequality is often heavily influenced by the government. Corrupt and/or intrusive governments foster the kind of cronyism that allow some people to amass colossal fortunes and to effectively codify their wealth and influence in law. It's not a surprise that income inequality is the worst in Latin America and Asia, where governments are particularly corrupt and the country's wealthiest landowners have been given free reign to amass colossal latifundia that wouldn't survive in a free market. I mean, even look at the US. We spend gigantic sums of money on corporate subsidies and bailouts and our tax code is a complex nightmare (in general, US corporations pay some of the highest tax rates in the world, higher even than the Scandinavian countries with none of the benefits) thanks to decades of special interests writing the laws for us.

It's also important to note redistribution of income is also a very broad term. It doesn't necessarily mean physical redistribution, where government takes from the wealthy and middle class and gives it to the poor; in fact, I'd say that's the least desirable form because it is ineffective and open to massive corruption given the ease with which one can hide substantial assets from the government.

On the other hand, other measures, such as providing financial aid for and expanding access to higher education, improving community services, providing tax credits and loans for community investment and entrepreneurship and creating a strong legal program for fighting discrimination in the workplace all contribute immensely to fighting income inequality and could be considered "redistributive" in the sense that the wealthy, the largest taxpayers, are funding programs for people who pay comparatively little or no taxes and from whom the tax revenue that is generated is so marginal as to make the investments far exceed the amounts paid by those low-income people.

Income inequality isn't laudable, it's a sign of problems that need to be addressed. A freer, more transparent market and programs targeted at addressing the specific causes of inequality are the way to address it.

Interesting that one of the articles comes from the Mises Institute, though.

(I love the way the far-right libertarians call anything non-libertarian 'socialist')

I know anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify in this debate, but from the one economics course I've taken, yes the free-marketeer 'fuck the poor' (but said in a nicer way of course) mantra was the pretty predominant message.

My economics courses have always been positive analysis and theories, I'm surprised that they would have much normative economics in a first year course. Is it possible that your teacher/professor was just bias and felt the need to express it in his teachings?

Genius. :hail:

I'll start blaming them immediately.

I take it I'm the only person who remembers that Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew?

I take it I'm the only person who remembers that Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew?

Let's just start blaming everything on her.

Let's just start blaming everything on her.

People don't already?

After all, who likes crazy ideas like free people and free markets anyways...I love seeing my paycheck go down the drain to pay for government-sanctioned Ponzi schemes, corporate welfare and wars of aggression around the globe!

there are of course, several 'schools' of economic perspective, unfortunately, the one that most fits the popular, supposedly "mis"conception, seems to have been the most dominant for the past several decades. the school of a kind of blind faith in gobosh makiavellianism. that equates market forces with personal freedom.

that tries to brainwash everyone with the big lie that everything else is procustianism or worse.

Thing is, when you learn economics, you don't really learn much, or anything about redistribution of wealth (unless it's something specifically linking inequality and the performance of the economy), more to do with the production of wealth. The former is seen as more of a political matter, and a moral matter, and it is an important aspect of economics that value judgements is not something the subject of economics is trying to answer. It may try and answer whether it's optimal or efficient for an economy to redistribute (with the answer usually being that it is, at least somewhat), but that doesn't mean that they're trying to answer whether you actually should, just what its effects are for the economy.
Thank you.

Physicists can tell you something about the way the universe developed, something about the rules it follows, something about the things that are possible and those that aren't.

That doesn't mean they can tell you why it exists and what purpose it should serve.

Nah, they're people who rob from the poor and give to the rich. Like a bunch of reverse Robin Hoods.

The term you are looking for sir, is "Reagan Hood". http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm3/90000000000/Motivators/motivatorpic.jpg?t=1231510943

I take it I'm the only person who remembers that Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew?

Everyone who was anyone was a Jew. David Ricardo, Marx, Trotsky, Ayn Rand, Mises, Murray Rothbard.