A very general economic question

[DaveJ]

I have no idea what is taught in college economics past the 101 course. I imagine it's more about charts and graphs than it is real subjective thought. But, are there any more general economic theorists who take into account the history of the human race?

What I'm getting at is that I think there are two camps. Those who believe the economy works as a result of greed, and those who think the economy works as a result of cooperation. Of course, most will say 'both' but which is better?

Moreover, what I'm getting at is, working in technology, I am trying to make life better and easier for people. And, I have the feeling that every generation has worked to make life better for future generations.

So, why isn't life that much better? Sure, there are a few medical advancements, perhaps, for those few who can get them, but for the most part people are just fighting one another for life's essentials: a home, good food, a stable family... I can't imagine things are much better for us than they were 10,000 years ago.

So, is this failure proof that the economy is based on greed, and not cooperation?

What is standing in our way? Is it so hard for the human race to realize greed is bad, so we can evolve? Not just greed in terms of taking from our neighbors, but greed in terms of taking from the Earth more than it has to give.

I've just been going through an existential crisis lately, wondering what the point is trying to be a productive member of society, when historically nothing ever changes.

[Demeter]

1. America's Booming MBA Schools

I cannot think of any other place to start to fix the problem than by shutting down the Ivy league Fraud Trainers, and relegating MBA degrees to clerk status as far as pay, benefits and security.

After that, I'd go after the Federalist Society and similar fascist breeder farms.

I wouldn't touch the Fundie religions, just be sure that they never saw a dime of public money in any way, shape or form, and that tithing or any donation to a church was not deductible.

Then corporate welfare and election fraud. That should take out the Economic War Machine pretty thoroughly.

I'm not saying that the technically trained can do better--but we certainly couldn't do any worse!

[DaveJ]

5. I like your actionable ideas..

We all know, the core problem is that work does not equal reward.

But, how is that solved?

Your ideas definitely present a good first step.

One could also predict (concurrently) that the problem could be self-correcting (somewhat) as the planet's resources become more scarce. Those who have succeeded by ravaging the planet (and others) throughout history, may come up short. Those who are able to use resources intelligently, in theory, should be more likely to do well, and maybe this could be the methodology behind the upcoming Green economic boom.

That's actually partially why I am interested in developing software and computer technology. I know that some of the manufacturing and disposal methods are not perfect, but I feel that generally, the information age has brought forth a lot of ways to be productive without sucking the planet dry of its resources.

But there are still more questions regarding how we prevent people from stealing rewards that are not rightfully theirs.

[whistle]

6. That is a very good start and then have a book burning on all the fraudulent

...monetary economic text books which have the same status and value as Creationist Science and Intelligent Design Texts, that of toilet paper and shredded carton packing material

[CTyankee]

2. Yours is a perennial concern of economics.

I had an Econ course in graduate school called "Value: Culture and Philosophic Basis for Economic Valuation." We surveyed Western civilization's economic theories from the ancient Greek philosophers to modern time. Again and again, in reading from the texts of economic theorists, we saw that their philosophies and theories grew out of their times in history. Economic thinkers throughout this history looked for ways to work out the idea of value to improve their society's economic situation.

Obviously, a lot of it had to be self serving justifications reflecting the concerns of each historical period. I read original texts arising from each of the major periods, from Plato through the Mercantilists, Enlightenment, Classicists, Marginalists, Neo Classicists, Keynsian and Post Keynesian. Wading through all of that is unhelpful, IMO, to your question, although it is intresting (and time consuming!).

If there is a good summary out there, I would like to know about it myself. Econ was rough and a LOT of work. The Internet is prolly your best bet in finding a summarized version of historical thought. However, my guess is that you will find just as much conflict of theories in summary as you would from reading from original sources.

I said at the time of that course that half of economics I didn't understand and the half I understood I didn't believe...

[Celebration]

3. revolution of rising expectations

It's been decades since I finished college, but maybe to some extent we are programmed to be dissatisfied. Our economic system and "the invisible hand" and all the math and graphs associated with Adam Smith are based upon the assumption that our wants and needs are limitless. The math breaks down without that assumption.

And yes, there is a revolution of rising expectations. Probably 10,000 years ago people were similarly happy/unhappy as we are now, but if we had to live under those conditions now, we would get pretty upset without our cell phones and Ipods.

[flashl]

4. Accepting any model where cultural or social dividends are not built-in is a problem. nt

[sergeiAK]

7. I think you have an idealized view of history

Life is undeniably better than it was 10k years ago, or even 100 years ago.
Things we have:
A life expectancy >50 years
Healthcare that is at least moderately effective
Air conditioning and heat in damn near every home
Cheap, readily available food (though it's rising in cost at the moment, historically cheap still)
A remarkable lack of communicable disease (witness the black plague)

Things we no longer have:
To cut wood several hours a day for heat and cooking
Sod/dirt houses
The 6 day, 12 hour/day workweek
Hunting/gathering to survive
Huge epidemics of disease that wipe out 1/3 of the population


Life was nasty, brutish and short 100 years ago. It is less so today.

[DaveJ]

8. I think you are forgetting 3rd world countries...

I did mention healthcare, for those fortunate enough to afford it. Luckily we live in a country that has it, and I admitted that healthcare is one of the few improvements over the last 10,000 years.

As for the other things, hunting and planting is no more a hardship than being chained to a cubicle, or whatever modern jobs entail.

Air conditioning??? I don't have it, and I don't miss it. And, virtually all the other plastic electronic gizmos we have today are toys, not quality of life improvements. I play a PSP on my way to work on the train, but I'd have as much pleasure talking to someone, which would be possible during a hunting and gathering era.

So, I think little has changed, and that things were not as bad historically as you think they were.

[AdHocSolver]

9. Economics is the art of getting people to work hard so as to be able to accumulate worthless crap.

Sorry to take the discussion out of the realm of philosophy and get down to the nitty gritty, but philosophy usually led people to error and often dementia.

The economy is whatever the ruling class sets it up to be. The capitalists have developed the economic model of waste for this period in time. Manufacture a lot of cheap junk, differentiated only through slick advertising, and encourage the belief in the masses that the more of this junk that they accumulate, then the happier and the more "successful" they will be.

Make sure that consumables never satisfy by getting the masses to believe that what you are selling will bring more happiness then the product could possibly deliver. Ensure cheap quality so that products will break down quickly and the suckers will want to buy a new and more expensive one that will work "better" and last longer. It was called "built-in obsolescence" in the old days.

Spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote brand loyalty so that you can sell the shoddyest and cheapest, and mostly imported, merchandise at exorbitant markups, and give your executives big bonuses for bamboozling the public.

Then, spend hundreds of millions more dollars to attack scientists who spread the alarm about climate change, pollution, and the general destruction of the ecosystem. Spend billions to buy politicians to prevent the population from demanding affordable health care for everyone, and spoof everyone with buzz words and meaningless phrases like "free trade", "socialism", "protectionism is evil", etc.

There are two camps as you surmise: They are those who are doing the screwing and those who are getting "scrod".

[sugerdady87]

10. Very good question

This is a very good question as I tend to see many misconceptions about what the economy is "based" on. What makes economies work, or for that matter, free-market economies, is the free choice of individuals; weather that be to compete or cooperate.

Competition is the driving force of innovation, but in order to effectively compete, many businesses, persons, firms or any type of organization cooperate on a large scale. Both are emergent factors as a result of individual free choice.

What failures do you speak of btw? And how so is greed bad? If you mean seeing your own self-interest above the interest of others, then no, greed is not bad. Greed as well as other human trait were and still are essential for our survival.