Joined Jun 2010
48 Posts | 2+
Politics of Economics?
- Thread starter Precognition
- Start date
Joined Mar 2008
9,993 Posts | 7+
Damned England
It depends when!
Often, ideology will change the economic character of a state: communism is an example. Ideology also drives redistribution of wealth, and Conservative or "Libertarian" ideology will drive the inequalities of capitalism in the name of liberty. Nazism, for example, redistributed wealth and created public work schemes: but poured much money into re-armament.
On the other hand, lack of Government regulation (which could be the result of ideology, like in 1980's to 2009 UK and America), allows great excesses by economic institutions and are followed by inevitable, severe, changes of economic circumstances. As today. Marx predicted the "boom-bust" economy, where both become more frequent and more severe.
Economics do not happen, usually, without Government policy allowing it. However, economics is of course central to politics: think the repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain under the Liberals, following ideas by Adam Smith and the Free Market. This changed the political and economic and, indeed, physical landscape of Britain. Ideology of the economic kind caused this.
In short, I would say that politics causes economics, but now and again, international economics can create "reactive" politics- like the Wall Street Crash. Would Hitler have come to power, without the Wall Street Crash? But the Wall Street Crash was surely caused by the US government's failure to regulate the economic state of the country. Just like today. And even the repercussions are more political than economic: now, Greece has been downgraded to "Junk" economic statues, when it's deficit is about the same as the USA's. Plainly, 12% of the Greek economy is much less money than 12% of the US economy: hence Greece is being punished where America is not. This is plainly political rather than economic.
Mind you, politicians like to present themselves as reacting to International Economics when things are bad (the "global economic downturn") and also as creating the right conditions for the economy at state level when things are good. As usual, they're lying.
Often, ideology will change the economic character of a state: communism is an example. Ideology also drives redistribution of wealth, and Conservative or "Libertarian" ideology will drive the inequalities of capitalism in the name of liberty. Nazism, for example, redistributed wealth and created public work schemes: but poured much money into re-armament.
On the other hand, lack of Government regulation (which could be the result of ideology, like in 1980's to 2009 UK and America), allows great excesses by economic institutions and are followed by inevitable, severe, changes of economic circumstances. As today. Marx predicted the "boom-bust" economy, where both become more frequent and more severe.
Economics do not happen, usually, without Government policy allowing it. However, economics is of course central to politics: think the repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain under the Liberals, following ideas by Adam Smith and the Free Market. This changed the political and economic and, indeed, physical landscape of Britain. Ideology of the economic kind caused this.
In short, I would say that politics causes economics, but now and again, international economics can create "reactive" politics- like the Wall Street Crash. Would Hitler have come to power, without the Wall Street Crash? But the Wall Street Crash was surely caused by the US government's failure to regulate the economic state of the country. Just like today. And even the repercussions are more political than economic: now, Greece has been downgraded to "Junk" economic statues, when it's deficit is about the same as the USA's. Plainly, 12% of the Greek economy is much less money than 12% of the US economy: hence Greece is being punished where America is not. This is plainly political rather than economic.
Mind you, politicians like to present themselves as reacting to International Economics when things are bad (the "global economic downturn") and also as creating the right conditions for the economy at state level when things are good. As usual, they're lying.
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Joined Jul 2007
9,098 Posts | 19+
Canada
Joined Dec 2009
11,340 Posts | 2+
Ozarkistan
Money = Power. Money and Power are the goals and incentives for professional politicians. "Economics" is the covering rationalization for the realization of their personal ambitions, and those of their allies. "Trickle Down" = "Gush Up", for example.
Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
Economics is the vague term for the vehicle that carries everyone to their desired destination. No one seems to truly know how it works, why it works and why it doesn't. It is enlaced with every aspect of every persons life. It has probably existed since the days of the hunter-gatherer when one tribal member proved more adept at knapping spear heads and assumed this role as a full time position, trading spear heads for food and furs.
I think the politicians deeply desire for economics to "work", always and in every detail, just as all of us wish our cars would work.
By "work" I mean that there is always full employment, everyone is well fed, well housed and happy, the rich are getting richer, the middle class content, the lower class aspiring upward, all public services fully funded and zero monetary issues. If this would happen, then the politicians would retain their positions and authority and the requirement of money to purchase that is minimized. I believe they don't care how it works and would be much happier if it always worked and they could ignore economics.
That is a much more human desire than any other reading.
Of course that picture of economics is as far from reality as could be.
So the politicians are forced to meddle into economics when it breaks, sometimes on a macro scale, often on a micro scale, because wishes are not fishes. Of course the politicians know nothing more about how economics work than anyone else, including the experts.
But the politicians, like almost everyone one the planet, believe activity is the same thing as results.
As to the postings stating that politicians want money, that is merely greed and the desire to continue to purchase their position, but that is not economics. That could be called trade, a component of economics.
I think the politicians deeply desire for economics to "work", always and in every detail, just as all of us wish our cars would work.
By "work" I mean that there is always full employment, everyone is well fed, well housed and happy, the rich are getting richer, the middle class content, the lower class aspiring upward, all public services fully funded and zero monetary issues. If this would happen, then the politicians would retain their positions and authority and the requirement of money to purchase that is minimized. I believe they don't care how it works and would be much happier if it always worked and they could ignore economics.
That is a much more human desire than any other reading.
Of course that picture of economics is as far from reality as could be.
So the politicians are forced to meddle into economics when it breaks, sometimes on a macro scale, often on a micro scale, because wishes are not fishes. Of course the politicians know nothing more about how economics work than anyone else, including the experts.
But the politicians, like almost everyone one the planet, believe activity is the same thing as results.
As to the postings stating that politicians want money, that is merely greed and the desire to continue to purchase their position, but that is not economics. That could be called trade, a component of economics.
Economics drives politics... no wait, politics drives economics. oh well, round and round we go!
Blackdog: Isn't the ideology of a nation a product of, or in any case influenced by, the economic condition of a nation? You think Karl Marx could have happened in a rich and egalitarian environment?
It's only fitting that the reality of your day to day life, in which access to resources plays a big part, dictate your ideology. And after a while the ideology determines your approach to life. So in this chicken and egg scenario, I think economics comes first. Though immediately after that the two become intertwined and remain inseparable.
Consider a brand new gathering of people who have just decided to settle along a riverbank. How do you think they will operate to begin with? I think they will first concentrate on getting the basic resources, ensuring they all have enough to eat and roofs over their heads. From then on, when the basic necessities have been met, they could think of bigger problems and formulate an ideology.
Blackdog: Isn't the ideology of a nation a product of, or in any case influenced by, the economic condition of a nation? You think Karl Marx could have happened in a rich and egalitarian environment?
It's only fitting that the reality of your day to day life, in which access to resources plays a big part, dictate your ideology. And after a while the ideology determines your approach to life. So in this chicken and egg scenario, I think economics comes first. Though immediately after that the two become intertwined and remain inseparable.
Consider a brand new gathering of people who have just decided to settle along a riverbank. How do you think they will operate to begin with? I think they will first concentrate on getting the basic resources, ensuring they all have enough to eat and roofs over their heads. From then on, when the basic necessities have been met, they could think of bigger problems and formulate an ideology.
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
Isn't politics a way to get individuals to do things, and economy the result of what people do?
And because they got so mixed, and because they are so fundamental for our civilization, there is no real freedom, and we don't want to listen to politicians!
And because they got so mixed, and because they are so fundamental for our civilization, there is no real freedom, and we don't want to listen to politicians!
Joined Mar 2008
9,993 Posts | 7+
Damned England
My argument is that one can beget the other. Take Industrial Revolution England: (and Marx was one of the few to study this). It was far from egalitarian before, after or during the Industrial Revolution, and this had nothing much to do with economics, but the fact that political power was (and is) concentrated into the hands of those with money and hence power. The Industrial Revolution was a startling break from Agrarian Culture- to Pre Industrial- to fully modern state. Yet, whilst the mechanics of economics changed drastically, demographics along with it, the economic makeup of Britain remained much as it was before in general terms: some were rich, some got rich, most remained impoverished. Wealth never has, and never will, filter downward: no-one ever gets a payrise and thinks "Great, now I can give my Filipino maid a payrise!".
Plainly, those at the top and middle want to protect or enhance their position- someone, simply, has to pay for this. That "someone", as exemplified by today's events, is always the poorer type. Those at the top and middle rig economics to achieve their own economic and political ends. Those at the bottom are powerless.
It is plainly in the interests of the wealthier to keep the poorer as poor as possible as a spur to work hard and for less. Critics of Communism claim that it destroys this drive, because self improvement of one's lot is not forthcoming via merit. Yet, the wealthier have a conundrum: make the "peasants" too comfortable, and they'll not work: be too mean with them, and they'll not work. As such, politics influences economics to achieve the kind of balance the wealthy want: just enough carrot and big stick to extract the most work out of the peasantry for the least pay. Consumerism is merely a trick to make people think that they're doing OK, by having baubles. But nothing actually changes much.
The bottom line must be: money is power and power gets you money. Hence, politics is a way to rig the economy in the political class's favour.
This goes a very long way to explaining working class apathy!
Yes, a "new" civilisation may well behave as you suggest. This was indeed suggested of the Neolithic period: so small was the population, and so hard was survival that it allegedly made wars redundant and status was not economic. However, we now know that this so-called "Golden Age" never happened: pretty soon, your theoretical band of settlers soon form factions where some lay claim to more than others, and before you know it, we have kings/chiefs. They may do it by force or by knowledge, but they still believe that they deserve more. Warfare soon follows, as others attempt to get this position for themselves. I'd aver that this process is an unfortunate human trait: the belief that some people are worth more than others.
Which is a direct result of the fact that some people want more than the others, and want it with a passion whether it's the good things they hanker after or the bad. The less ambitious are always looked down on, accused of being lazy and taking the easy way out, so to speak.
I agree with what you have said but still insist that economics has a slight headstart over politics, but that's only in the beginning. I guess because we are way past any beginnings it doesn't really matter now; for all intents and purposes the two go hand in hand.
Joined Dec 2009
11,340 Posts | 2+
Ozarkistan
Joined Jun 2009
1,972 Posts | 2+
North Andover MA
Karl Marx said 'before man can think, he must eat'...Economics comes first. There are four processes in life, economic, political, cultural, and natural. All contradict and overdetermine each other, none stand alone.
Joined Jun 2009
1,972 Posts | 2+
North Andover MA
What exactly is regulation from your perspective? This is a vast area and regualtion itself is ideologically driven.
For example, a government that limits the profits of an industry by taxation and then redistributes that money as it sees fit. Or regulations that ban pollution of the water table or air. There are also social regulations regarding hiring practices and discriminatory practices.
I think it too grand a statement to say that 'regulation' prevents economic catastrophe. Regulation exists in the domain of the government, no society in history has had more stringent regualtions than the Soviets had, and THAT society was an abysmal failure.
There must be rules of course, and they must be equally applied to all players. But suggesting that more regulation is better than less is a canard. There is a right balance that measures private and public interests, it is that balance we all seek.
Joined Jun 2009
1,972 Posts | 2+
North Andover MA
[Consider a brand new gathering of people who have just decided to settle along a riverbank. How do you think they will operate to begin with? I think they will first concentrate on getting the basic resources, ensuring they all have enough to eat and roofs over their heads. From then on, when the basic necessities have been met, they could think of bigger problems and formulate an ideology.[/quote]
And I think just after they've eaten there will be a conflict regarding who is the leader, and how much influence the leader can garner. Such is life.
And I think just after they've eaten there will be a conflict regarding who is the leader, and how much influence the leader can garner. Such is life.
Joined Mar 2008
9,993 Posts | 7+
Damned England
Bobby: Yes, quite right, not all regulation is positive and I am opposed to much of it myself. The craze for health and safety, "positive discrimination" etc. Demarcations and the like. But minimums of acceptable pay and stops on corruptions etc are necessary to prevent exploitation.
Any society which fails to address its citizens' concerns- all of its citizens- is a bad society and will eventually fall. Several monarchies, goverments, and, of course, Soviet Communism are just a few examples. Like I said before on the other thread about global depression: "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" is what they should at least aim for.
Any society which fails to address its citizens' concerns- all of its citizens- is a bad society and will eventually fall. Several monarchies, goverments, and, of course, Soviet Communism are just a few examples. Like I said before on the other thread about global depression: "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" is what they should at least aim for.
Joined Dec 2009
11,340 Posts | 2+
Ozarkistan
Joined Dec 2009
11,340 Posts | 2+
Ozarkistan
Joined Dec 2009
11,340 Posts | 2+
Ozarkistan
The topic "Politics of Economics?" begs for a look at Alan Greenspan, Columbia University dropout, and Ronald Reagan's appointee to the post of chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Greenspan received an MA in economics from New York University in 1950; NYU gratuitously awarded him a Ph.D. in economics in 1977 -- after a 27-year absence -- but Greenspan had his own "dissertation" removed from the NYU files when he was appointed chairman of the Fed by Reagan in 1987. (Why?)
With regard to the housing bubble, Greenspan said: "I didn't really get it until very late in 2005 and 2006." In a congressional hearing he confessed that he had "made a mistake in presuming" that financial firms could regulate themselves. George W Bush awarded Greenspan the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he was awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service during the Bush years. (Do you find it strange, as I do, that cabinet-level people strike medals?)
Why was a person of such dubious credentials and proven bad judgment foisted by Ronald Reagan? Who promoted him in the first place? Why did Dubya's government adorn him with medals?
Greenspan received an MA in economics from New York University in 1950; NYU gratuitously awarded him a Ph.D. in economics in 1977 -- after a 27-year absence -- but Greenspan had his own "dissertation" removed from the NYU files when he was appointed chairman of the Fed by Reagan in 1987. (Why?)
With regard to the housing bubble, Greenspan said: "I didn't really get it until very late in 2005 and 2006." In a congressional hearing he confessed that he had "made a mistake in presuming" that financial firms could regulate themselves. George W Bush awarded Greenspan the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he was awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service during the Bush years. (Do you find it strange, as I do, that cabinet-level people strike medals?)
Why was a person of such dubious credentials and proven bad judgment foisted by Ronald Reagan? Who promoted him in the first place? Why did Dubya's government adorn him with medals?
Joined Jun 2009
1,972 Posts | 2+
North Andover MA
I think you've just named 90% of all societies. I guess this begs the question, do citizens know what's best for them, or does the government? Here we just passed a health plan that 60% of the people oppose, and we bailed out large corporations in opposition to the citizenry. Now one can say we can 'vote the bums out' but the damage is done. And how do we know what the citizens want?
I agree with the Lockian framework, that government is mandated and controlled by the people. But in practice such sentiments are sometimes obscured. The only way I can think of in getting the peoples voices heard early and often is to limit government, and it seems governments everywhere are expanding.
An interesting dichotomy is apparent. Corporations worldwide are cash rich. Goole has something like $38B cash on hane, and nearly every other major corporation have similarly large cash on hand. But every single government in the G-20 is in debt, and serious debt. This is why I trust private concerns more than public. When it comes to fiscal responsibility and achieving goals governments generally fare far worse than private concerns. Part of the equation is certainly the bureaucracies in place, the checks and balances, but another part is the culture of government in the free world.
Finally I must say that America has largely achieved the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the history of mankind. There have always been rich and poor, but nowhere has there ever been so large a Middle Class with so much wealth. That may be changing, but that is the record.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-