Off Topic Economics

Can anyone recommend An idiots guide to economics 101 or similar?

I would really like to clarify the different political philosophies of economics for myself.

Not interested in length tomes or convolute and obscure methodologies

cheers folks

 

Ring George Osbourne - I doubt he needs his anymore...

 

Is this what you want, Yorkie

Neo-liberals believe that the market is the best way to allocate resources. They argue that the whole system is far too complex and is affected by far too many exogenous variables for any person (or government) to be able to control it successfully.

The centre-right and centre-left believe that there are too many market failures to allow for the non-intervention of government. For example, the market does not price things such as pollution where the cost of the pollution is not included in the price of the good but is paid for by people not involved in the transaction. Hence the need for regulations for pollution control. The difference between the right and left branches of the centre is the degree of government intervention required..

The far left believes that the market can only work if some members of society are exploited so the free market must be abolished to protect those people. They also believe that the market will drift towards monopoly resulting in even more people being exploited.

There are an awful lot of implications for the above bald interpretation of economic philosophies. The main one is the difference between commercial profit and economic profit, but I won't go into that now.

 

well... on the road...

but i would still welcome a dummies guide book


PS combined with Cologne's comment below..... thank you

 

It's easy Yorkie:
Income 500 per week - outgoings 600 per week = Time to change my name and emigrate.
Income 500 per week - outgoings 501 per week = Slowly going tits up.
Income 500 per week - outgoings 500 per week = Boring.
Income 500 per week - outgoings 499 per week = Moving in the right direction.
Income 500 per week - outgoings 450 per week = The dog gets fed this week.
Income 500 per week - outgoings 400 per week = The dog gets fed, and we get a trip to the boozer.

There are around 100 different schools of economics, all are variations on the same theme of how to get money out of my pocket and into the hands of those who are already rich. Of the 100 there is one basic difference between neo liberal (Vienna School) economics, on the one hand, and Keynesian on the other: The neo liberal theory is like an updated version of the Laissez Faire of the 19th century ie. the state does **** all - they believe the best system to be that of unrestrained economic competition and in a kind of trickle down theory, meaning that if we allow the rich to accumulate wealth then this will eventually trickle down to the masses. Keynesian economics reverses this and stresses that you should create, and maintain, disposable spending power at the base of the pyramid - ie. a trickle up theory. The latter would have more of a role for central government in eg. fixing prices, and also in regulating a mixed economy. As you will guess I am a fan of neither of these. The first because the 'trickle down' theory has been proved as not happening - rather we see concentrations of wealth, and monopolies which are a threat to our democracy. The contradiction being that it promises freedom, and choice, but. if left to itself, produces monopolies - which means less choice. Keynesian economics sees me, first and foremost, only as a 'spending' animal - a 'customer', and nothing more than that. All modern schools of economics are based on the idea of 'growth' as being good - and the question of whether we actually have enough already and simply need to distribute it more fairly, rarely arises.
All of these schools are based on factory farming, which is a central fundament of modern consumer capitalism - because, if the percentage of disposable income spent on food rose from the present 6-8% to the levels of 70 years ago (30%+) then the system would be ****ed. They are also based on making us more stupid by the day - they need to convince us that a) What we have already is not enough and b) they need to create 'needs' for things, which we don't actually need.

 

Thanks Cologne...

That helps my thinking

Yes the Growth myth pervades eh...

What models do you favour that I could also take a look at?

Or a good book critiquing the approaches?

 

The model I favour is probably inapplicable to the UK. Yorkie If you google under 'Anarchist economics' - in particular looking for William Godwin, Peter Kropotkin and Pierre Joseph Proudhon then you are well on the way to my position. More practical is to go under the maxim 'think global but act local', namely economic systems should be as local and as self sufficient as possible - only importing what they cannot produce themselves, preferably with 'local' currencies - the larger state is simply a voluntary amalgamation of these. Look up the transition town idea of Rob Hopkins, together with the idea of permaculture. One of the biggest problems with the ideas of people like Kropotkin was in trying to establish exactly how we calculate the price of something. Also to find a way of making sure that the work done in any state is usefull work - with defining what work is (as opposed to play) John Ruskin is usefull. If the object of any activity is only to move money from here to there (without producing anything which is usefull to somebody else) then it is not work - and, for me, work should always be the only source of wealth. This means, for me, that such a thing as 'interest', and living from it, is theft - but this is not just an anarchist/communist idea, but also comes from the Bible and the Koran.

 

Thanks v much..... I will follow up.....and no doubt be back with some questions

 

Hmm things have moved on since I did Economics at School & Uni, I will follow this with interest. I have never really understood this focus on growth and why it is a good thing, why is it not ok to not grow?

 

A bit of basic economics for you Yorkie.

A senior doctor has spoken out after his hospital was quoted £855.80 for a blackout blind by its official NHS contractor.

Dr Christopher Davies, who works for the the Royal Berkshire Hospital, said a matron later purchased the item for £22.95 from Homebase instead.

Dr Davies, a respiratory consultant, said it was then fitted for free by in-house staff.

 

madness..............

 

It is OK. But if all media portray it as a bad thing then it is a bad thing.
Capitalism must grow and grow, use all available resources, at accelerating rate, until none are left. But we'll worry about that then.

 

It looks simple but there are hidden costs here. The time to measure and select the correct blind. The going and purchasing (including a % of the vehicle fuel and depreciation). The cost of the time of the 'in-house staff' (their salaries and other employment costs divided by the amount of job time taken - and also the time when they are not being used). The 'value' of the time the room may have to be vacated for blind fitting.
I've no idea what that all adds up to, but it's more than twenty-two quid.

 

Plus a % of all ancillary costs etc etc

I remember when we were looking at growing our business at University... i.e. we had capacity... about 90% of the business deals I worked up were non-viable because with all the on-costs the hourly rate we could charge for my team's time was so high as to be not economic to the potential partner. So the spare capacity was not used and we generated no income in those periods. And some of that work was well paid too or some great charity projects overseas etc.

Since I have left I am charging half that rate for my time and picking up some great projects.

On the other hand a univ admin assistant would not go to the shops to buy materials etc as not part of thier job... so i as a middle manager had to do such things, wasting my time etc etc ... all crazy

Another time i went on a conference... and the welcome evening meal was at 17.30 as there was a keynote at 18.30 ... when I put in my claim, which had already been pre-approved as part of my team's CPD allowance, I was refused the welcome meal as it took place before18.00 which was the start time under Univ regs for evening meal allowance... so I had to pay £30 of my own money.

Another time i set up a whole conference , went to finance and it was refused as it did not generate a 'profit'. The next year i did the whole thing under another code and it went ahead...

 

Under a freedom of information request the government was asked just how much the appeal to the Supreme Court had cost. The department was unable to provide a figure as they had not received the electricity bill and some of that cost would have to be proportioned to it. They also said that they didn't have a breakdown of the cost of civil servants as they didn't know how much time they had spent in preparing the case. All this tax payers money on a case they were told they would lose before embarking on it just seems crazy. The normal person who pays some tax has helped to finance this, so surely has a right to know how government spends the money.

 

On economics something that annoys me is when the US drops a 'mother of all bombs' the press report it cost $314,000,000. In truth the computer system orders a new bomb. $100,000,000 (say) gets given to the ingredients/materials suppliers who pay tax at say 10% on profit. But they also pay employees and both employer and employee pay tax at 30%. And the employees spend the money and pay VAT. And the same goes for the manufacturer of bombs, the transport company, and USAF who transport it to impact zone. And many other support suppliers including the toilet cleaner and sandwich lady at the factory, the insurance companies, and the cafe where the lorry driver stopped for coffee.

So in truth dropping that bomb had three impacts on the planet:

It killed some people
It created lots of employment
It used some of the planets resources and contributed to global warming

But it sure as h*ll didn't cost $314,000,000. But it certainly stimulated the economy.

Would be interesting to see the calculation of the real cost although that might put anyone off studying economics including you Yorkie

 

I feel that if a contractor quoted me that amount to fit a blind in my house I would tell them to go on a journey. Yes it would cost more than £22 from Homebase but the contractors quote is taking the P***. I wonder how much the NHS and most of government would save if they actually bought stuff the way a rational person would. (oh now I have started something - the rational person/consumer debate....) Change rational to sensible.

 

Economists like to think they study a science and yet most of what they say appears to lie half way between ideology and guesswork.

 

I wonder what my economist father in law would have thought about that.

 

Pince-sans-rire, he would have thought I expect Frenchie