The more a person understands economics, the more likely they are to support right-wing positions

>The more a person understands economics, the more likely they are to support right-wing positions

Agree or disagree?

Other urls found in this thread:

igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4
people.sabanciuniv.edu/atilgan/FE500_Fall2013/2Nov2013_CevdetAkcay/LucasCritique_1976.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
youtube.com/watch?v=C6V0XzJfm8U&t=22s)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The more a person understands people or economics the more likely they are to be right wing. Left-wingers labour under the delusion that the natural state of man is peaceful, friendly, and generous.

The more someone understands people and their nature they quickly realize left wing policies could never realistically be implemented well

Its harder to argue economic policies if you have no idea how they will effect the economy.

Who wrote the books now Jimbo?

thats a big book

4u

LOL economists in the US are more than 2:1 Democrat and the economy performs better under Democrats than Republicans.

are you an obamaleaf follower?

Define "understand economics".

No, I don't 'follow' him, I came to my own conclusions independently. That being said I agree with him on pretty much everything and he's right.

IT's a good one though. Worth the read

Only if they study on their own. If you lean economics in college, high chance of being left wing.

Marx was an economist.

this is misleading, people tend to vote for the right during recessions voting for austerity

of course it will be squed towards the democrats

It depends what you define as "right wing". Many american right wing positions are based on misunderstandings of economics and using that to pretend their ideology has empirical backing.

Any time someone says "simple economics" supports something, it's probably wrong. Introductory economics teaches you abstract concepts that don't apply in the real world - their purpose is to ground you to learn the more complex concepts.

Wow. What a genius

>people tend to vote for the right during recessions
Does the same hold for depressions?

Disagree.

If you look at the IGM polls of top economist from Chicago, MIT, etc. they mostly support left wing positions. They have been very negative on the recent right wing tax cuts, health care bills, etc.

igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Of course that depends how you define left and right wing, but in general, I agree.

fpbp.

left wing shit is under the assumption that people have good intention. left wingers today don't have any good intentions. they're ideologues who hate white men and want to destroy western civilization out of resentment.

this is why they're feminist but allied with islam. they've got absolutely no principles. they simply use good intentions as a weapon to recruit people to destroy stuf

Generally yes, at least on the economic policy side.

1.Democrats fuck up the economy
2.People vote for opposite party
3.Republicans come in and try to save it
4.People get angry because it is not fast enough and vote for Democrats
5.Repeat

Perhaps. I think, at the very least, the more you understand the less likely you are to support left-wing positions.

Call me when Krugman stops being a bitch and debates Bob Murphy.

while I agree with you on most cases, if you look at mankiw's 10 principles they almost always apply at higher levels as well.
But things like some monopoly/competitive models or simple s&d graphs are very misleading.

undergrad gtfo

youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

>No understanding
Left-wing
>Basic understanding
Right wing
>Middling understanding
Centrism/Neoliberalism
>Advanced understanding
Left-wing

Pretty much how it works.

>Bob Murphy
he's literally a joke outside of internet lolbertarian forums, plus I dont see how he would ever show his face outside again after getting obliterated by david friedman

Not a serious one, he was a political theorist without any real training in economic methods, calling himself an economist was just LARPing really.
People voted for Obama during when the recession started, for FDR during the recession/depression, for Clement Attlee during the post-WWII economic malaise that the UK had, etc.

Economics is Bullshit.

News at 11 Pleb.

Literally the opposite is true. Who was president during the 2008 recovery? Who was president during the Great Depression

le ebik video m8

Except virtually all of the top economists are Centrists/Neoliberals really, Krugman, Stiglitz, etc. aren't Left-Wing unless you're really distorting the term.

The more a person understands economics, the clearer the catastrophe to come is realised. The more you understand, the more you realise this system was destined to fail

>2007scape wiki
Red:wave:selling x for yyyyK -- z

Ah the pinnacle of free markets

Not at all. Most people who scratch the surface of economics have a right wing thought process, once you gain a deeper understanding, you start to shift away from libertarianism and other meme ideologies, mostly because they all operate on the assumption that human beings are fundamentally rational creatures who all think the same, i.e. like you do. You have to understand that people don't think like you do, and once you accept that you can open your mind to the world. This is, of course, the same reason why people fall out of socialism.

Virtually all economists will say immigration is a good thing.

Right wing people don't like immigration.

So it's not as simple as you would like to believe.

The whole book is predicated on static partial equilibrium models.

pro tip: we've known these are retarded since atleast the 70s

people.sabanciuniv.edu/atilgan/FE500_Fall2013/2Nov2013_CevdetAkcay/LucasCritique_1976.pdf

>Bill Clinton signed the AFM in 1999 which directly caused the massive sub prime mortgage collapse n 08. Which caused bailouts which negates all the budget surplus bullshit you fuckers talk about.
>Obama created a corporate health insurance system which penalizes small businesses for expanding. Worst recovery in history, peak at 2.5% growth.
>Deficit spending/inflation/money-printing/devalued dollars = good for the economy
>Good for the economy

Yes, it will make you more libertarian leaning once you understand that taxation moves productive money from one part of the economy to a necessarily less productive part of the economy and the public works projects just deny employment and development elsewhere. Unfortunately you can never really say what could have been had there been no taxation because it never was

Oops meant

Krugman is a meme, lets be honest here. He's a total left-wing political hack LARPing as an economist.

>implying that those weren't caused by the welfare state

Lol why would a Nobel prize winner debate that scrub?

Wanna see my fedora

>You have to understand that people don't think like you do
>not Libertarian

????

Immigration is only good if your immigrants aren't immigrating to the welfare state. Bryan Caplan is a relatively famous open borders ancap and basis his idea on the mathematical reality that someone will become x% more productive when taken from a place with low capital to a place with high capital. He is either ignoring the drain of the welfare state or is operating on the assumption that the welfare state will not exist when we have an open border situation. Right wing people don't like unproductive immigration.

I'm an economics professor.

I'm also an anarcho-syndicalist.

>Murphy is also noteworthy, and has been criticized by economists Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman for, repeatedly predicting that the quantitative easing practiced by the Federal Reserve in the late 2000s would create double-digit inflation—predictions that did not come to fruition.

>Bill Clinton signed the AFM in 1999 which directly caused the massive sub prime mortgage collapse n 08
>Directly
>Obamacare is the reason for low GDP growth
-2

This is from the most conservative econ prof I read, john cochrane

>the vast majority of immigrants to the US come to work, and pay taxes. Overuse of social services is simply not a problem.

FDR delayed the great depression by 10 years

>America recovered during 200
>the democratic party of the 1940's were the same party as they are in the current time

> Nobel Prize winner in economics
> LARPing as an economist
Collective/government action often has better net outcomes for the economy than private use with the same money would though since it often goes towards building institutions. Private initiative is often hesitant to pursue massive initial investment high-capital projects because of the risk involved and the low short-term profits, but public action can totally complete projects which account for massive externalities and have positive net effects like education systems, healthcare systems/spending, constructing nuclear plants, massive infrastructure projects, etc.

How do you plan on solving the economic calculation problem if you live in a command economy.

almost like they are trying to develop a foundation.

Econ major here, both presidents during the depression prolonged recovery. The fed was most responsible for the Great Depression because of poor fiscal planning.

Also the reason lasted as long as a normal boom in business cycle... i'd hardly call that a a successful recovery.

>2008*

nobody understand economics

Read the lucas critique.

The whole foundation is wrong. Static partial equilib models serve literally no purpose other than giving you the wrong intuition

How could there ever not be taxation?

>Econ major here
Why do people do this? Nigga, I know you're not an Econ major. No need to LARP credibility for your right wing retard positions

>an appeal to authority
Sad.

Do you know what anarcho-syndicalism is?

i know what it is. Partial equilbrium models are used to teach frameworks of economic reasoning- for example IS-LM is used to show how an economy reacts to fiscal or monetary stimulus. nobody even uses PE models in any research paper

Equilibrium theory in general is just plain wrong.

Define "economics"
>A series of competing religions based on ideology-justified axioms
>Eg (neo)classics, Marxists, Keynesians, Austrians

Nobody uses it for labour markets either or anything else because it gives wrong and misleading results.

Yet we teach entire generations of undergrad students it, for the sole purpose that they are shit at math and cant understand GMM and dynamic programming

Obama saved the economy by dumping trillions of dollars into the economy. This is anything but good.

Again, FDR delayed the great depression by 10 years

The government is capable of these things, but it does not do them better because they are not competitive enterprises. Taking massive risks with expropriated public money is not a virtuous use of the people's money. Education, healthcare, construction are all completed on a private basis somewhere in the economy and are almost always better. NHS is a nightmare in Britain because it does not compete with anything, if you want the best education everyone knows to send their kids to a private school.

The risk aversion is an important force in the market when you take it away you get things like the housing crisis. In this scenario the government demanded that industry relax its underwriting standards and grant loans to anyone with a heartbeat. Industry did because they put all the risk on the Fed. Predictably poorly qualified debtors defaulted and the whole thing collapsed and Barack Obama sent the banks a bailout in QE2. The most massive transfer of tax money to private interests in history.

You only think the outcomes are better because you never had a chance to see what could have been otherwise. Remember the government can't even deliver the mail profitably or optimally efficiently why would you want them doing anything else?

A bizarre lateral market organization that somehow doesn't develop hierarchies in the process of collectively owning and running the economy

Right wingers are more likely to independently research things in general. Economics, history, religion, philosophy, etc. Left wingers (((learn))) about these subjects from HuffPost and Slate as long as it fits their agenda.

It's the basic pathology of left vs right wing on display. Leftists are about collectivism and easily brain washed by (((consensus))) and populararity contests.

Economics are very real.

True economists work in finance.

Everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about.

Disagree

If you understood capitalist economics, you would realize that it's a fundamentally flawed system that need an outside force to reset or regulate itself - or be replaced with central planning.

>Yet we teach entire generations of undergrad students it, for the sole purpose that they are shit at math and cant understand GMM and dynamic programming
>Undergrads are taught simpler concepts than than are known in the field
Literally every subject ever, yet we expect technical knowledge of them from politicians

Finance is probably the least well understood of all sub disciplines of economics and has a reputation of retards working in it.

People that work in finance understand how to make money in the current economic system.

if understanding economics is right wing, then explain jews

that's a very good book and worth the read, but it's a bit outdated now desu

>needs central planning
>where did all the food go?
>???????

Jews are more right wing than Hitler was

They have traditionally been the market makers in whatever society they've wound up in. Hence everyone's obsession with them

> Remember the government can't even deliver the mail profitably or optimally efficiently why would you want them doing anything else?
That's only because they continue to operate a ton of routes in rural and sparsely populated areas that otherwise wouldn't be able to get mail because the routes aren't profitable. If they cut off those routes it would be profitable, but I don't view that as a good thing, it's good that they still deliver to those areas and can provide a service the market can't/wouldn't. That case applies similarly to other markets. There is private healthcare available in Britain, even if the NHS dominates it due to cost considerations.
> The government is capable of these things, but it does not do them better because they are not competitive enterprises.
The government actually does do some things better than the market or does necessary things the market wouldn't do. You wouldn't want competing police forces most likely, it just leads to tons of extra problems. The government can't do everything but it's false to claim that the market would do everything better or magically solve problems
> Housing crisis
An example of failure but not related to what I was talking about, that's just retarded policy, not an example of something the government should be in the business of operating.

Rare and aesthetic

thats not difficult considering hitler was a liberal

Not an argument

its not simpler concepts, its wrong concepts.

We teach 1st year undergrads Riemann integration because they havent developed the mathematical maturity to understand Lesbegue intergration.

The riemann integral will still always give the right answer, you just can't integrate nearly as large classes of functions and have weaker convergence theorems than you do with the lesbegue integral.

This is an example of teaching a simpler concept.

In economics we teach ones that are explicity wrong, like static labour supply and demand curves. It has no higher generalization, provides false insight and is just all around retarded

They know how to make money in any system.

That is what makes them the real economists.

>reading anything shilled by ayn rand and thinking you're getting anything but ideology

hedge funds have been outperformed by passive indexes for the last two years now

You're just quibbling over definitions. You teach static curves because they help visualize the concepts of supply and demand and how they interact, not because you'll need static curves throughout other concepts.

Disagree. I would say it's more likely they support centrist positions, given that economists tend to lean towards the centre, not towards the right. In fact, economists are more centre-left than centre-right.

complete horseshit. to work in finance you need to be driven and want to hustle. you don't need to know the ins and outs of economics, it's not even a science. finance guys are usually maths grads.

demand curves arent even observable lmao.

do you think physics would ever teach something like that? pro tip: no

Again, you're battling definitions. The point of the curves taught to undergrads is to visualize the interaction of the concepts of supply and demand, and allow for the depiction of how other factors can theoretically affect them. That is the "simple concept" that doesn't apply in reality but is a teaching tool.

You're not going to "observe" a demand curve, but you can model demand in an industry.

>visualizing something that doesnt exist.

this is why econ majors should not be a thing.

this.

Im a phd in macro finance atm. I did an undergrad in pure math and pretty much everyone I work with either skipped the standard economics eduction (mankiw) or realize its all bullshit and useless

>RE: the mail
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
Rural areas would have free delivery if this had been allowed to continue. It's the reason your mail comes to a box at the end of your driveway

>The production of security
Wrong again. A police officer has no obligation to even save your life or recover your stolen property. The SC has ruled this way. In fact they have a motivation to maintain a certain level of crime in your area in order to justify budget increases. You have no contract with these people. A private insurer will definitely do work to recover your property in the event it is stolen to avoid a payout. Private security will protect you under the explicit terms of the contract you sign with them. Politicians hire private security they don't call the cops. See a Private law society for details (youtube.com/watch?v=C6V0XzJfm8U&t=22s)

>Why the housing crisis is related
Any government intervention fucks with the price information being transmitted around the economy so resources become mis-allocated. In mild cases certain things become more expensive as you progress with things like rent control you get housing shortages, if you've gone full commie you end up starving your entire country because no one is competent enough to set the 24 billion prices required to run the economy in relation to one another. However each business is able to manage the handful of prices related to it like a giant flesh computer. Relying on public policy to not be retarded is a massive leap of faith.

He a cute.
A CUTE!

Is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics any good or is OP's book better?