/lit/ - Literature

>>1500573
nice to know. I meant that I mis-spelled my trips.

>>1500483
mis-spelled trips

Anyway guys. I am tired and will now leave the board. Just one thing I have understood about economics that I would like to share:

"Economics is an unstoppable and impartial, indifferent force. It can be brutal or it can be rewarding. The study and practice of economics is not to not only to act in the directions to maximize profit, but to reduce the effect of its brutality on people when situation so arises. Economic profit is is extremely essential but secondary to human betterment."

>>1498366
I would disagree. Utopia means Ideal. Whether the idea is impossible or not decides whether the Utopia is impossible or not.

>>1498342
Please give me your definition of Utopia and the meaning of "conservative socialist". Political science terms always confuse me.

>>1498312
Sure. Please find it here.
>>1498162


>>1498315
That it is misleading. It is true that the labourer producing goods almost never is capable of buying the goods. But it does not mean that he will remain a labourer all his life.

That paragraph reflects the fact of slave labour and not market labour that operates in say European countries or USA where the industry is indigenous.

Think about it: It applies to industrial-revolution days of yore and todays Africa and China, which are basically slave labour nations.

Who's fault is it really?

Its the moral fault of the corporations that invest in it and MORE the fault of the governments of that nation.

>>1498280
But I only agree.

Its just that it is much better than Planned economies, don't you think?

>>1498285
The truth is, and you know i,t that Employment subsidies are not amongst those which were relevant to we were debating about progressive taxation equated to flat tax through subsidies.

It is true that Flat tax can be made equivalent to a progressive tax but THAT requires subsidies on goods and services as I clearly mentioned earlier. So I was right.

>>1498257
Sorry if they seemed throwaway. What I should have said was:

Compared to other systems we have tried. But that still is a throwaway answer. The complete answer is this:

1) Choice of goods you can purchase and hence increased bargaining power

2) Assurance of increasing quality due to competition

3) Higher opportunity to enter the market as a supplier

4) Larger revenues

(Assuming of course no carteling and monopolies).

>>1498255
>Additionaly, your claim that a flat tax wouldn't work because social justice demands a progressive tax system (in your view, at least) is completely off. As I've tried to explain to you, the taxation system =! fiscal system. You can maintain a progressive fiscal system with a flat tax. You achieve progressiveness via subsidies, via a negative income tax.

Now fit unemployment subsidies in this argument.

>>1498230
This is a really good question unless you are trolling.

Yes. Capitalism can be hardly called Utopian as it Guarantees (and everyone knows it at the basic level) that there is no positive status quo. Tragically it is based on how we are built (Humans) at its base. Hence it is the most practical one. Sorry.

Other systems ARE utopian in that they promise a positive status quo. Historically they have been shown be either impossible or at least very painful to implement.

>>1498226
>ability to choose, less govt. interference etc
In my lexicon that comes under economic freedom

>>1498222
By using some case studies. Choose one most relevant to your locality. it helps to actually associate with it. Its actually not so difficult.

>>1498192
You are going to hate me for this, but I believe that welfare should be reduced to battle depressions/ recessions. Should education subsidies be reduced/revoked? I really don't have a concrete opinion on that. Sorry.

>>1498187
>Unemployment subsidy
Kindly elaborate how it is related to the argument we are having.

>>1498185
oh. I thought that the statistical evidence was automatically supportive to my argument but I guess, Correlation does not imply causation.

Market economy is much more stable, reliable and self-adjusting system. Amongst other things that we have tried in human history it seems to give maximum social benefit in terms of taxable revenue and economic freedom. What else would you want?

Please know that I am very much willing to listen to your criticism of market economy.

>>1498167
no.

>>1498131

My entire knowledge about Obama's policies comes from reading popular economics magazines (I consider Economist to be pop).

So yes. Spending that does not trigger production in a recession IS a bit deleterious.

>>1498132
What has her got to do with this all????

>>1498125
>neo-liberalism
Believe it or not, Market economy is becoming world favorite for a reason.

>>1498129
>Flat tax with subsidies.
Is not AT ALL like progressive tax. Subsidies are given on goods. This would mean that you will have to restrict consumption or reserve it.

>>1498134
>hundreds of thousands

Quite agreeing.Its our family project to just see it all by ourselves. Nothing to be concerned angered about I say.

>>1498118

I liked it. But that does not make a supporter of planned economy.

>>1498113
>capital flight, china, unions

Tragically union stubborn-ness (assuming there is such a thing in USA. You see I haven't got data about USA). will not be the bog problem when compared to China. China is literally using slave labour to attract foreign investment. No one can compete with that.

>citizen's wage
There is no such thing. Perhaps you can explain in detail.

>swedish model ->Europe

Europe is almost applying it, except for large stakes of govt. in industry. Only that even Sweden is slowly reducing its stakes in its public sector.

>>1498114
I had to google his name. So I dare say I don't know anything.

>>1498117
Ok. Which original arguments he makes, do you think that are today relevant? Please understand that I am NOT denying his social relevance! He did bring a revolution in the field of labour right no matter who says what.

>>1498112
This is assuming that something can actually be done.

But cut spending. Its a generic advice everyone gives. Its a good one.

>>1498109
>lolwut

It is quite easy to argue actually that economics is not a pure science. Econometric analysis is highly dependent upon the model it uses to predict the outcomes of that model. In that aspect it is a HARD science way of looking at Economics. I actually agree that it is a useful way to play around with numbers. But I would not argue that national policy be decided according to its projections.

My father was always very skeptical of people claiming that they could 'predict' any results based on historic data (statistical) or use their axioms to build models and use microeconomics to get numbers. I am not glad to say that now I share his skepticism.

>>1498097
I knew that I would have to answer this question.
One simple answer is:

Means of production are no longer localized to a few individuals. All of us have direct or indirect stakes in them, in a market economy.