What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is economics political? (1 Viewer)

Is economics political?

  • yes

    Votes: 40 85.1%

  • no

    Votes: 7 14.9%
  • Total voters
    47
JAA

JAA

Footballguy
I posted this in the CV19 FFA thread.  It was categorized as political.  My sincere question is "Is economics political"?

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that capitalism could work for the common good if guardrails where in place.  Unfortunately, they are not nor do I believe most people understand why they should want them.

Example 1:  Capitalism currently servers the shareholders.  Shareholders used to be long-term minded investors who wanted to be a part in the growth of companies.  The growth of companies used to be driven through hiring people and growing a localized workforce.  That served the common good.  Today, shareholders are driven by microsecond deviations of 1/8th percentage points.  If their point drops, they sell millions upon millions of shares of companies that employ people.  People cannot respond to this level of change.  Also, IIRC 70% of all stock is not owned by individuals.  Think about that.

Example 2:  We as a people want and expect our citizens to have a savings account and plan for "when things get tough".  While the vast majority of Americans dont have these savings, if they lose their job or have an unexpected cost they could lose their house, car, everything.  They may need to declare bankruptcy, get their future wages garnished, stay with family/friends until its all recovered from.  Now - look at corporations.  Our stock market drops like 20-30% in 1 month, just 1 month, and now all corporations need to layoff millions of workers.  We have the largest unemployment numbers in like forever.  Why is it we expect our citizens to have "savings accounts for tough times", but we dont expect our corporations to have the same protections?  Where is the corporations plans?  Why did they not prepare for hardship or the unexpected expense?  Where was this future planning when things were good?  Why is it we privatize profits for our corporations and shareholders, but we socialize losses for the same corporations through bailouts which as we all well know will ultimately will be paid by citizens taxes?  Why is this way?  Why is it when things are good execs and shareholders are rewarded (remember, shareholders are for the most part not people) but when things are bad, the citizens need to pay for it?

Once you understand the system and how is is organized, its easy to see, plainly easy IMO, that it does not benefit the common good.
Click to expand...
I would vote "no".  I personally dont believe any political party gets to own capitalism.  I believe checked capitalism is good.  I believe unchecked capitalism is bad.

Thanks

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
You should be linking to a definition of "political."  Something like "relating to the government or the public affairs of a country."    
Click to expand...
So you mean any public affairs of the country are political?

Help me understand then, according to your definition, what is not political?

 
JAA said:
So you mean any public affairs of the country are political?

Help me understand then, according to your definition, what is not political?
Click to expand...
Yes, debates about governmental policy are political.  Non-political debates include stuff like travel, sports, entertainment, cooking, etc.  Although each of those subjects could potentially be political if the debate involves some sort of governmental policy or action. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yes, debates about governmental policy are political.  Non-political debates include stuff like travel, sports, entertainment, cooking, etc.  Although each of those subjects could potentially be political if the debate involves some sort of governmental policy or action. 
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding.  I would still like to understand then, according to that definition, what is not political.

 
Economics isn't.  Capitalism is.

cap·i·tal·ism

/ˈkapədlˌizəm/

noun

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

 
lakerstan said:
Economics isn't.  Capitalism is.

cap·i·tal·ism

/ˈkapədlˌizəm/

noun

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Click to expand...
Is this because our govt supports capitalism as its economic construct?

 
Economy, or the scope and mode of its transmission, distribution, and consumption is necessarily political in that society determines by force to whom and how buying power is allotted.

Always political, but you know I feel that way because I told you you were being political in the COVID thread.

 
JAA said:
Is this because our govt supports capitalism as its economic construct?
Click to expand...
No, it's because a key part of the definition of capitalism is about the level of control the government has.

Economics as a study of markets/prices/incentives/behavior is not political. Discussions about economic systems and how the government should or shouldn't be involved in manipulating those markets/prices/incentives/behaviors is political.

Discussions of price theory and equilibrium prices where demand and supply intersect is economics and not political. Whether the government should allow market prices to be what they are or institute some kind of price control is political.

 
rockaction said:
Economy, or the scope and mode of its transmission, distribution, and consumption is necessarily political in that society determines by force to whom and how buying power is allotted.

Always political, but you know I feel that way because I told you you were being political in the COVID thread.
Click to expand...
Where is your line?  What is not political?

 
dgreen said:
No, it's because a key part of the definition of capitalism is about the level of control the government has.

Economics as a study of markets/prices/incentives/behavior is not political. Discussions about economic systems and how the government should or shouldn't be involved in manipulating those markets/prices/incentives/behaviors is political.

Discussions of price theory and equilibrium prices where demand and supply intersect is economics and not political. Whether the government should allow market prices to be what they are or institute some kind of price control is political.
Click to expand...
This is the part where I feel schooled.

Thank you

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Considering 70% of the posters at FBG hoped for an economic recession if that would prevent Trump winning in 2020..... Economics is definitely political.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty gross misstatement about the results of the poll and the comments that followed explaining the vote.

 
It's a social science and not a real science for a reason.  It's a figment of the human imagination the economic system so yes it  can be whatever you want it to be.  Thus the arguments.  They are all technically right because there is no 'right'

 
Basic economic talk with markets and  supply and demand and such can be apolitical.

Discussion of capitalism / socialism / communism and the like as it relates to economics will almost always lean towards political. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Basic economic talk with markets and  supply and demand and such can be apolitical.

Discussion of capitalism / socialism / communism and the like as it relates to economics will almost always lean towards political. 
Click to expand...
But even basic economic talk is political, seeing as how it is NOT an evidence driven science. Comparing Keynesian vs Austrian schools of thought vs others is essentially pointless, because people are just as stuck in their mindset as political parties are, and it is such a soft science that anything you don't like can be hand-waved away or anything you do like can be willed into existence solely on the power of "I feel this is correct". 

 
huthut said:
But even basic economic talk is political, seeing as how it is NOT an evidence driven science. Comparing Keynesian vs Austrian schools of thought vs others is essentially pointless, because people are just as stuck in their mindset as political parties are, and it is such a soft science that anything you don't like can be hand-waved away or anything you do like can be willed into existence solely on the power of "I feel this is correct". 
Click to expand...
It's a science like homeopathy is a science

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
But even basic economic talk is political, seeing as how it is NOT an evidence driven science. Comparing Keynesian vs Austrian schools of thought vs others is essentially pointless, because people are just as stuck in their mindset as political parties are, and it is such a soft science that anything you don't like can be hand-waved away or anything you do like can be willed into existence solely on the power of "I feel this is correct". 
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the bold make it an art? 

But yes, it's extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation about economics involving what should happen with it not being political.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ- said:
Wouldn't the bold make it an art? 

But yes, it's extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation about economics involving what should happen with it not being political.
Click to expand...
Every economics person insists that it is a hard science where math and modeling matter and there are tons of evidence backing up their assertions once you remove the outliers. 

 
I think you can answer that both ways, totally up to the poster/thinker.

No, it’s not political, because it’s a science based on numbers and agreed upon assumptions.

Yes, see Karl Marx, who stated a few basic  principles (albeit not laws) of economics - but most especially he connected the realistic effects of economic failures on society.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
Every economics person insists that it is a hard science where math and modeling matter and there are tons of evidence backing up their assertions once you remove the outliers. 
Click to expand...
Ok. Just my humble opinion, econ minor. economics is a blend of science and art, similar (not exactly) to military science / warfare. 

 
JAA said:
I posted this in the CV19 FFA thread.  It was categorized as political.  My sincere question is "Is economics political"?

I would vote "no".  I personally dont believe any political party gets to own capitalism.  I believe checked capitalism is good.  I believe unchecked capitalism is bad.

Thanks
Click to expand...
You need to watch Inside Job the documentary.  Pay for play Ivy league academic economists.

https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-more-than-thousand-bucks-hour-peddling-mega-mergers

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
Joe Bryant said:
Basic economic talk with markets and  supply and demand and such can be apolitical.

Discussion of capitalism / socialism / communism and the like as it relates to economics will almost always lean towards political. 
Click to expand...
Why does it need to be this way?

 
JAA said:
Joe Bryant said:
Basic economic talk with markets and  supply and demand and such can be apolitical.

Discussion of capitalism / socialism / communism and the like as it relates to economics will almost always lean towards political. 
Click to expand...
Why does it need to be this way?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting discussions about the level of government involvement in the economy doesn't have to lean towards being a political discussion? What would that look like? What do you mean by "political"?

 
dgreen said:
Are you suggesting discussions about the level of government involvement in the economy doesn't have to lean towards being a political discussion? What would that look like? What do you mean by "political"?
Click to expand...
It would look like people discussing the costs and benefits of an economic construct, instead of people screaming "AH SOCIALISM!!! NO SOCIALISM!!! IT'S SOCIALISM!!!!' 

For example, we can discuss the costs and benefits of our national highway system without it becoming political, because it's been around so long that people are used to it and as such aren't afraid of it.

But any attempt to discuss the costs and benefits of, say for example, a national health system, will become political very quickly, not because it's inherently different than a national highway system, but because people don't know what it would look like and are taught to fear anything that looks to be socialist in nature, because that would take us one step closer to becoming a socialist country. Without such ridiculous, irrational and emotional response, the discussion of it would simply be a discussion of the costs and benefits  of it as an economic construct. 

So the problem isn't what is being discussed. It's the people, and what they've been taught to fear that is. 

 
Politician Spock said:
It would look like people discussing the costs and benefits of an economic construct, instead of people screaming "AH SOCIALISM!!! NO SOCIALISM!!! IT'S SOCIALISM!!!!' 

For example, we can discuss the costs and benefits of our national highway system without it becoming political, because it's been around so long that people are used to it and as such aren't afraid of it.

But any attempt to discuss the costs and benefits of, say for example, a national health system, will become political very quickly, not because it's inherently different than a national highway system, but because people don't know what it would look like and are taught to fear anything that looks to be socialist in nature, because that would take us one step closer to becoming a socialist country. Without such ridiculous, irrational and emotional response, the discussion of it would simply be a discussion of the costs and benefits  of it as an economic construct. 

So the problem isn't what is being discussed. It's the people, and what they've been taught to fear that is. 
Click to expand...
Correct.  There is a different between something being socialized and the economic construct of socialism.  Hence ... the politicism

 
Ok, it sounds like I’ve been defining “political” a little differently. I think I get what you’re saying now. 

 
Politician Spock said:
So the problem isn't what is being discussed. It's the people, and what they've been taught to fear that is. 
Click to expand...
Or maybe instead of blaming the people or what they've been taught or pulling in fear to the equation, maybe it's ok to assume when people discuss capitalism or socialism or communism, the conversation often turns to how governments are involved in those isms and discussing government usually means what most people think of as "political".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Or maybe instead of blaming the people or what they've been taught or pulling in fear to the equation, maybe it's ok to assume when people discuss capitalism or socialism or communism, the conversation often turns to how governments are involved in those isms and discussing government usually means what most people think of as "political".
Click to expand...
When you are talking about any economic construct, there are entities involved in executing the construct. Whether it's a for profit, non profit or government entity that executes it doesn't make it political.

If a for profit company decides to build and donate a playground to it's community, is that political? If your non profit home owners association decides to build a play ground in the community, is that political? Is government building playgrounds in it's community political? 

Politics is the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Politics is not the discussion of economic constructs. It only becomes political when political fears are brought into the discussion. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
Politician Spock said:
When you are talking about any economic construct, there are entities involved in executing the construct. Whether it's a for profit, non profit or government entity that executes it doesn't make it political.

If a for profit company decides to build and donate a playground to it's community, is that political? If your non profit home owners association decides to build a play ground in the community, is that political? Is government building playgrounds in it's community political? 

Politics is the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Politics is not the discussion of economic constructs. It only becomes political when political fears are brought into the discussion. 
Click to expand...
But when political entities influence economics.....doesn't that make it political?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
484
The Commish
The Commish
Memphis Foundry
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Politics Forum Is CLOSED.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Memphis Foundry
Memphis Foundry
Captain Cranks
Definitions
Replies
20
Views
683
The Commish
The Commish

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top