[DaGeek]

What should the point of Economics be? Is it that everyone should be rewarded by how much they work, how lucky they are, etc., or should its purpose be to enrich the whole of society since it's all interdependent anyway? Or another option?

This question comes from reading up on Keynes's beliefs and ideas, and it intrigues me. Keynes believed that the point of Economics should be for everyone to live agreeably and well. I would say I tend to agree with that. But I feel like that can run in opposition to rewarding each person based on how hard they work, and I'm not sure I can stomach that, as I don't trust human nature to work well regardless of personal reward. Not to change the topic of the thread, but is there a way to reconcile the two well? Just how far should a society go to help everybody? Who gets to decide what's "fair" for everyone?

I'm not sure what sort of discussion this will spur, but I'd love to hear some of you guys' opinions.

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure there should be a single goal.

Certainly one goal of economic systems is to "raise all boats"... to make an economy more like the 1990's than the 1930's.

After that: the goals are likely related to the person persuing an economic policy. There seems to be a general consensus that there should be an opportunity for success (I believe the unsuccessful want hope, and the successful don't want to be beheaded in a revolution).

The successful promote a "should keep what you can earn" because they earn the most. Like the monarchs of old, they sell this idea to the people in the guise of morality (like Beck actually "earns" billions) as well as an appeal to sloth and greed (you too could become rediculiously wealthy without work; so don't take it from Beck, because you might want to become him).

There's another view that views the economy as a tool to further the human condition. They believe the goal of humanity should be to care for (at minimum) humans. Some are utiopian idealists who end up advocating ideas like communism and anrchy; and others are more pragmatic and see more of a Faustian deal trying to balance incentives to advance with controls to protect the powerless.

I believe (with pendulum swings) the last is the survivor because communist systems lack incentive to produce, and capatalist sytems end up with revolusions by the impoverished majority... no this this stops the haves from gaming the system (the have-nots would like to, but they lack the power to).

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not sure there should be a single goal.

Certainly one goal of economic systems is to "raise all boats"... to make an economy more like the 1990's than the 1930's.

After that: the goals are likely related to the person persuing an economic policy. There seems to be a general consensus that there should be an opportunity for success (I believe the unsuccessful want hope, and the successful don't want to be beheaded in a revolution).

The successful promote a "should keep what you can earn" because they earn the most. Like the monarchs of old, they sell this idea to the people in the guise of morality (like Beck actually "earns" billions) as well as an appeal to sloth and greed (you too could become rediculiously wealthy without work; so don't take it from Beck, because you might want to become him).

Do you think this is a conscious goal by the rich/successful?

I'm not big into the whole idea of conspiracies, but I believe it would be wildly incorrect to believe the rich/successful, with their high education, don't realize what they're doing. Maybe they're not all trying to exploit the masses, but they certainly use their fickle tastes and lesser education to their advantage. Certainly this may not be the truth in all cases, but it's my observation.

There's another view that views the economy as a tool to further the human condition. They believe the goal of humanity should be to care for (at minimum) humans. Some are utiopian idealists who end up advocating ideas like communism and anrchy; and others are more pragmatic and see more of a Faustian deal trying to balance incentives to advance with controls to protect the powerless.

I believe (with pendulum swings) the last is the survivor because communist systems lack incentive to produce, and capatalist sytems end up with revolusions by the impoverished majority... no this this stops the haves from gaming the system (the have-nots would like to, but they lack the power to).

I would agree with you, and I also would say I like that system better than the alternatives listed in your post. Morally and ethically, I am completely against exploiting the poor (and the poor don't like it either, leading to, as you've said, revolts), and I support a system that is at least a little bit regulated so the poor don't get stomped. I'm not yet decided how much regulation I'm okay with, but I'm working on it.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by DaGeek

Do you think this is a conscious goal by the rich/successful?

I'm not big into the whole idea of conspiracies, but I believe it would be wildly incorrect to believe the rich/successful, with their high education, don't realize what they're doing. Maybe they're not all trying to exploit the masses, but they certainly use their fickle tastes and lesser education to their advantage. Certainly this may not be the truth in all cases, but it's my observation.

I don't think it's universal: indeed, not all of the wealthy are advocates of unrestrained capitalism. Those that are then come up with patronizing names to marginalize them.

I don't believe most rich people become rich without knowing what they are doing to become so and how to stay that way. I will say that, when I've been aware of executive-level action at corporations I have worked for it has indeed been very deliberatly designed to game the system (to the extent of bribing... I mean "contributing to" campaigns and purgering... I mean, finding favorable studies to their own causes: truth be damned.

I would agree with you, and I also would say I like that system better than the alternatives listed in your post. Morally and ethically, I am completely against exploiting the poor (and the poor don't like it either, leading to, as you've said, revolts), and I support a system that is at least a little bit regulated so the poor don't get stomped. I'm not yet decided how much regulation I'm okay with, but I'm working on it.

Unfortunately: as so much of the political spectrum is in hyperbole and the ideology of each and every piece of everything, it will be hard to have a realistic, rational conversation in the political venue about what degrees of regulation and freedom are most appropriate to an attainable goal.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not sure there should be a single goal.

Certainly one goal of economic systems is to "raise all boats"... to make an economy more like the 1990's than the 1930's.

This is what the founders believed. The monoarch was looking at the economic "ocean" as a finite quantity and trying to controll the amount of wealth to his own advantage. The founders saw that wealth could be generated anew, and the standard raised by allowing freedom of enterprize.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The successful promote a "should keep what you can earn" because they earn the most. Like the monarchs of old, they sell this idea to the people in the guise of morality (like Beck actually "earns" billions) as well as an appeal to sloth and greed (you too could become rediculiously wealthy without work; so don't take it from Beck, because you might want to become him).

Or to use more common examples, Bill Gates or J.D. rockefeller, who despite the government intrusion, were very successful. Many charities and good institutions benefit from their success in the market, and philanthropy flowing out... hardly the same as an old monarch, who just wanted to collect the spoils.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I believe (with pendulum swings) the last is the survivor because communist systems lack incentive to produce, and capatalist sytems end up with revolusions by the impoverished majority... no this this stops the haves from gaming the system (the have-nots would like to, but they lack the power to).

The problem facing those who oppose our form of capitalism (well regulated being the goal, I add), is that Americans at both ends of the scale have benefitted over time. Tough to argue with.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

This is what the founders believed. The monoarch was looking at the economic "ocean" as a finite quantity and trying to controll the amount of wealth to his own advantage. The founders saw that wealth could be generated anew, and the standard raised by allowing freedom of enterprize.

Which founders would those be? Support this claim.

Or to use more common examples, Bill Gates or J.D. rockefeller, who despite the government intrusion, were very successful. Many charities and good institutions benefit from their success in the market, and philanthropy flowing out... hardly the same as an old monarch, who just wanted to collect the spoils.

Nice cherry-picking there.

Of course Rockefeller is known for using such dishonest and anti-competitive tactics creating a monopoly that many of the government regulations were *invented* in response to him,

You didn't pick Steve Jobs (no records of charitable giving)... but I suppose charity-giging isn't the topic... or are you asserting that the purpose of the economy should be to concentrate wealth in as few people as possible so that they can give to charity?

The problem facing those who oppose our form of capitalism (well regulated being the goal, I add), is that Americans at both ends of the scale have benefitted over time. Tough to argue with.

So you are agreeing with me.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which founders would those be? Support this claim.

Those guys who started the USA. (?)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Nice cherry-picking there. .

You compared the successful to a monarch. I disagree in many ways. Actually I threw in JD Rockefeller to avoid the appearance of cherry picking... suit yourself then, Steve Jobs. Has Apple not produced things many of us desire?

Your comments on Rockefeller reveal a somewhat distorted version of history. He provided affordable kerosene to every man, many who could not afford it before.... although I do concede there are many "history books" which paint the same distortions.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

... or are you asserting that the purpose of the economy should be to concentrate wealth in as few people as possible so that they can give to charity?.

I'm not going to post in this thread of you're going down this road (hyperbole? ...your suggestion as one of the problems with discussing this topic).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Those guys who started the USA. (?)

Would you care to name some names?

You compared the successful to a monarch. I disagree in many ways. Actually I threw in JD Rockefeller to avoid the appearance of cherry picking... suit yourself then, Steve Jobs. Has Apple not produced things many of us desire?

What does one have to do with a second have to do with a third?

Your comments on Rockefeller reveal a somewhat distorted version of history. He provided affordable kerosene to every man, many who could not afford it before.... although I do concede there are many "history books" which paint the same distortions.

What incorrect statement did I make?

I'm not going to post in this thread of you're going down this road (hyperbole? ...your suggestion as one of the problems with discussing this topic).

That's good too.