Post: #26

(01-27-2014 01:41 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Economics is a strange subject since any two experts will disagree on most things. So even when you have studied alot you are still no clearer in your understanding on alot of important issues.

Before I studied economics, I thought the same thing. But it is not true. You must simply make a choice between reality and false intellectualism. Between the blue pill and the red pill.

Do this simple exercise: Ponder upon what every person on the planet must do to avoid insolvency in their own lives. Then apply that simple test to each school of economic thought and determine which one makes the most sense. It is really just that easy. Seriously.

I concur. The difference between what works in an intellectually ideal world and what works in reality is huge.

It is possible to be educated beyond common sense - which I believe is part of the problem regarding economic theory.

Post: #27

(01-29-2014 08:09 AM)lowside Wrote:  - does he mean the mentality of the scandinavians is such, that they don't allow poverty to exist in their society?
- does he mean that scandinavia is a much smaller part of the world than the USA and as such, it is easier to handle poverty.
- if above is the case, then why wouldn't he have said: in xxx state we have no poverty either.

no idea really

He means of course, that large government sector does not mean no poverty. The way to get rid of poverty depends on what the reasons for that poverty are, and his argument is that private actors, private charities to a better job of identifying root causes and offering sustainable solutions than government bureaus. Simple and undoubtedly true.

A prerequisite though, is that the agents who carry out the anti-poverty measures are competent. A population that believes in the virtue of charity, in alms and helping the poor and the weakest in society stands a much better chance of actually helping the disenfranchised. Essentially a Rawlsian approach to utility. That is, about as Christian as it can get.

Another important feature of Scandinavians is trust. This is a by-product of the nation state. Homogeneous populations, well socialized by their parents' generation and through the school system, espousing traditional values of patriotism and solidarity with fellow countrymen - simply being of the same nationality warrants friendship and cooperation. This fosters trust, and thus allows you to give to other countrymen without having to worry you'll be taken advantage of and your charity will be for naught.

The great strength of the nation-state is the solidarity and level of cooperation it encourages among populations so large that, in other societies, the same level and efficiency of coordinated action would be impossible.

If you want to learn more about this, read Robert Putnam's article, "E Pluribus Unum".

To the commenter above:

Excessive and rigourous mathematics ensures high standards of logical thinking and helps to make economics a discipline.

In sociology, scholars argue all sorts of points of view, often in the most arbitrary ways, because they have no solid foundation to build upon. Scientific rigor ensures all scholars have the same point of departure and the same compas and that they all operate in the same dimension. It is both liberating, because it enables better and sounder conclusions, and stifling, because it acts as a quality control to hare-brained ideas.

Learning economics has given me, at least, some very useful tools that help me learn when to discard a point of view, and it also ensures I always keep in mind what identifying assumptions shape my views. This is a much more useful feedback loop for reaching better conclusions.

The world would, without a doubt, be a better place if a year of rigorous economics (nothing worse than algebra and some basic calculus) became an obligatory class for all high-schoolers.

Post: #28

(01-29-2014 08:09 AM)lowside Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 02:54 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Milton Friedman discussing Scandinavia:

Quote:A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty."

Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."

I'm sure this is somehow a brilliant statement....but why?

- does he mean the mentality of the scandinavians is such, that they don't allow poverty to exist in their society?
- does he mean that scandinavia is a much smaller part of the world than the USA and as such, it is easier to handle poverty.
- if above is the case, then why wouldn't he have said: in xxx state we have no poverty either.

no idea really

Google is your friend (unless it is stealing your personal information):

Quote:The 4.4 million or so Americans with Swedish origins are considerably richer than average Americans, as are other immigrant groups from Scandinavia. If Americans with Swedish ancestry were to form their own country, their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the income of the average American. This is also far above Swedish GDP per capita, at $36,600. Swedes living in the USA are thus approximately 53 per cent more wealthy than Swedes (excluding immigrants) in their native country (OECD, 2009; US Census database).

http://www.cato.org/blog/swedens-big-wel...es-america

Post: #29

(01-29-2014 08:48 AM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  It is possible to be educated beyond common sense - which I believe is part of the problem regarding economic theory.

That is a perfect one-sentence summary of so-called "modern" economics.

Post: #30

(01-29-2014 11:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 08:48 AM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  It is possible to be educated beyond common sense - which I believe is part of the problem regarding economic theory.

That is a perfect one-sentence summary of so-called "modern" economics.

Cheers. I'm a big believer of the KISS principle; complexity does more harm than good!

Post: #31

I think Milton Friedman was saying that Sweden has a hard-working culture which means you will not find high levels of poverty in Scandinavia or Scandinavian immigrants.

As such - Scandinavia is a poor place to see the effects of big government. Since those countries without the same morality and culture as Scandinavia would abuse such a welfare state.

Post: #32

Sweden did not become a rich country because of the introduction of the welfare state. Instead, Sweden being a rich country allowed them to set up the welfare state. The roots of Sweden's economic success before the welfare state lie in the 19th century when free-market policies unleashed the economic potential of Swedish social traits and culture. These social traits and cultural characteristics also allowed Swedish immigrants in the free-market USA to flourish.

Further reading here: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/file...0Paper.pdf

Post: #33

All I can say is that I studied economics for three years at a university and it taught me absolutely nothing about how to make money. The only thing it taught me was how to become a slave of the 9 to 5 system and how to obey my master (boss). It was a waste of time but now I am on my way of recovery. If I were you I would read a lot of books but don't go to the university for it

Post: #34

I dropped out of uni - just to read books instead. I lived on campus, chilling out and reading what I want.