This was a very interesting read.
The author had formed obvious opinions favoring neo-classical thought. With
that in mind, I believe they did a good job summarizing the battle of economic
thought that persists today. Something interesting to note is a point made that
even though classical economic thought is continuously attacked, somehow the
attacks have seemed only to refine it. Today neo-classical thought continues to
persevere amongst a diverse academic environment.
I also find the argument
interesting that every economic woe to ever exist since Adam Smith is the fault
of politicians, Marxists, socialist, and anything not neo-classical leaning.
Maybe that argument wasn’t intended. However in that case, it was accidently
articulated very well.
I very much liked the point that
was mentioned about Friedman desiring a consensus on economic thought. It seems
to me that there is a place for neo-classic thought and a place for Keynesian
thought. Marx made some good points as well, and to this day I wonder if we
will still see the revolution of the worker that he imagined. However, the
bickering seams to continue. Not only among academic elite, but among
politicians and also among the people in general.
To me, before we can answer the
question “Who is right?” we must first answer the question “What is the purpose
of economics?” Is it to allocate resources in the most effective way? Is it to
improve the quality of life? Is it to grow GDP? I argue that the purpose of
economic policy is the same as the purpose of government, to insure life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t care how efficiently resources
are allocated if I am not free. I would even be willing to sacrifice my
standard of living to ensure freedom. I believe the majority of Americans feel
that same. I suspect the worldview may be a little different.
The last thing I wanted to comment
on was the two opposing views between Musgrave and Buchanan. One trusted
Politian’s and the other did not. I don’t know how anyone could trust
politicians in general. Power corrupts and though there may be exceptions to
the rule, politicians in general are corrupt or become corrupt. This is
essential to our economic system because no matter what the best economic
choice is, politicians will only do it if it benefits them. This is a universal
concept and at the base as to why we fought for our independence.
Two words; term limits. If we
imposed term limits on congress then this would eliminate many problems we
have. Legislatures would no longer work feverishly to get re-elected. Instead
they can do what best for the people. Some might think that gerrymandering
would cease, but I think it would continue for party power. So we also need to
eliminate gerrymandering. It would be best if we could reset these lines to
some kind of generic geographical lines, but even if we didn’t over time
demographics would change and the currently lines would mean little for
political party re-election. Another problem is fund raising. Congress uses
“fund raising” during legislative sessions as a form of extortion. They
threaten laws and then the corresponding interest come begging to throw a
fundraiser in order to help the congressman see their view of the issues. If we eliminated fundraising during
legislation sessions, combined with previously mentioned items, it would help
limit congressional extortion.
Subscribe to Youtube! Become a Fan!
Follow Me on Twitter
I agree with you on this. The Market Economy is really getting out of hands and its time to take some serious action. Thanks for writing on such an important topic mate.
ReplyDelete