My answer to Why do politicians and the very rich benefit the most in a socialist society? https://www.quora.com/Why-do-politicians-and-the-very-rich-benefit-the-most-in-a-socialist-society/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=94e389da
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-29 01:53:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946559661863469056
My answer to Do governments create wealth and jobs for it’s citizens? https://www.quora.com/Do-governments-create-wealth-and-jobs-for-its-citizens/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1dbcc7c2
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-29 01:37:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946555754458128384
That prices are determined by market forces independent of state interference. There is no perfectly free trade. And in the current era the value of free trade is no longer what the classical economists suggested.
https://www.quora.com/In-Laymans-terms-how-would-you-define-the-free-market
a large percentage of americans cross the 400k threshold at least one year.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-support-the-1-knowing-they-will-never-be-part-of-it
I’m going to give you a different answer from the rest. Which is the group evolutionary strategy advanced by the different schools.
Ostensibly, all schools study every scale of human interaction from behavior through micro, thru macro, through the world economic system. We teach the fundamentals with micro and macro. But these are just entry level disciplines.
But just as people have intellectual, moral, and political biases in every field, so do they in economics.
“SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS”
The schools of economics reflect the culture and class of their origins. These groups do not acknowledge that their strategies and biases are as I”ve stated them here but their research evidence states the contrary. So I have tried to provide a general Spectrum of the institutions by what I understand is their culture/class bias.
a) “Austrian / Rothbardian” (“Jewish”, Separatist) : Rule of Credit, Parasitic Optimum, Separatist / Anarchism.
+Financial Class Bias. Anti-Commons Bias.
(As far as I know, no university teaches the Jewish Austrian method.)
b) “Mason-ism” (“Anglo Libertarian”, Right ) : Optimum Rule of Law, Nash Optimum, Minimal State / Christian Monarchy
+Entrepreneurial Class Bias.
(the only University I know of using this program is George Mason.)
The “Mason-Libertarian” school places greater emphasis on maximizing the voluntary cooperation of individuals and organizations through reduction of impediments to ethical and moral cooperation.
c) “Classical” (“Chicago”, Anglo, Center Right), Rule of Law, Insured Nash Optimum, Parliamentary State / Classical Liberalism.
+Middle classes bias. (I would argue ‘not biased’)
All other things being equal, the Chicago school places greater emphasis on policy that insures against error and failure by seeking formulas and rules that investors, businesses, and consumers can predict, thereby preserving rule of law, and maintaining the prohibition on discretionary rule.
d) “Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, Center Left) : Mixed Discretionary Rule, Pareto Optimum, Social Democracy
+Working Class Bias, Consumer Bias, Female bias(anti-male bias). Minority(anti-white) bias. Underclass Bias (anti-entreprenurial bias).
All other things being equal the mainstream seeks to optimize consumption at all times, using every lever available, and favors abandoning rule of law, and adopting rule that is increasingly empirical, reactive, and discretionary.
e) “Left Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, “Jewish left”) : Authoritarian Rule, Anti-Aristocracy(War), Extractive Maximum (Predatory), Socialism/Communism
+Underclass (outsider) Bias. This is the Krugman/Stiglitz/Delong club of leftist economists maximizing both consumption and financial extraction as a means of undermining western aristocratic civilization and western norms and traditions and rule of law.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-different-branches-of-economics
MMT is an interesting thought experiment.
The problem is we can’t test the theory very easily.
And the underlying question is whether it would just generate runaway inflation.
And as far as I can tell it would.
HOWEVER
I will put money on the fact that governments will, sometime in the next few decades, distribute liquidity directly to citizens via debit cards, rather than attempt to manage interest rates.
I will further put money on the fact that governments will, shortly thereafter, provide zero interest loans for the purpose of increasing consumption.
And that as a consequence the consumer lending sector will all but disappear.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Libertarians-think-about-the-Modern-Monetary-Theory
That prices are determined by market forces independent of state interference. There is no perfectly free trade. And in the current era the value of free trade is no longer what the classical economists suggested.
https://www.quora.com/In-Laymans-terms-how-would-you-define-the-free-market
Why would we want to end capital flight? It tells governments that they are managing badly.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-libertarians-think-of-a-progressive-global-wealth-tax
a large percentage of americans cross the 400k threshold at least one year.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-support-the-1-knowing-they-will-never-be-part-of-it
Friedman was a statistician and Hayek a philosopher and historian.
Hayek explored every field and came to the conclusion that we were having the wrong discussion: the question is simply rule of law under the common law of tort versus discretionary rule of any other kind. Friedman proposed means of producing commons by market means. These works are largely compatible. What’s incompatible is holding a discussion of capitalism vs socialism rather than what they REQUIRE: rule of law vs rule by discretion (not rule of law).
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-in-thinking-between-Milton-Friedman-and-Friedrich-Hayek