161–170 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what the leaders of the Soviet Union thought. They learned the hard way that it isn't true.
That's what every leader thought - every country has a slightly different rules - and many of them ended up quite well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what every leader thought - every country has a slightly different rules - and many of them ended up quite well.
As individuals they may have done well, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the nation failed when their attempts to alter the laws of economics collided with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As individuals they may have done well, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the nation failed when their attempts to alter the laws of economics collided with reality.
Again - every nation altered those laws and most did just fine. There aren’t any “universal laws of economics”; it’s all entirely man-made and there are many different variations.
Yes, there are. Let's go back to your original claim:
> Economics, on the other hand, is man-made and can be adjusted as required.
Think about it: if this were true, it would be possible to "adjust" the laws of economics to (say) eliminate poverty. So if eliminating poverty is a simple matter of "adjusting" economics, why hasn't any nation on earth ever eliminated poverty by "adjusting" its economics? It's because economics is not "man-made", it's a consequence of human psychology, which is a natural phenomenon and therefore operates according to natural laws, not man-made ones.
It is not possible to eliminate poverty simply by "adjusting" economics. There are actual underlying constraints that you have to operate under: finite resources, the fact that people won't work without incentives, the fact that different people want different things. One man's "poverty" is another man's "freedom."
BTW, even Jesus recognized that you cannot eliminate poverty simply by sharing: Mat26:6-11.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again - every nation altered those laws and most did just fine. There aren’t any “universal laws of economics”; it’s all entirely man-made and there are many different variations.
> There aren’t any “universal laws of economics” Yes, there are. Let's go back to your original claim: > Economics, on the other hand, is man-made and can be adjusted as required. Think about it: if this were true, it would be possible to "adjust" the laws of economics to (say) eliminate poverty. So if eliminating poverty is a simple matter of "adjusting" economics, why hasn't any nation on earth ever eliminated pove…
If laws of economy were fixed, how come they change over time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There aren’t any “universal laws of economics” Yes, there are. Let's go back to your original claim: > Economics, on the other hand, is man-made and can be adjusted as required. Think about it: if this were true, it would be possible to "adjust" the laws of economics to (say) eliminate poverty. So if eliminating poverty is a simple matter of "adjusting" economics, why hasn't any nation on earth ever eliminated pove…
Those that would like to eliminate poverty aren’t those making decisions. If laws of economy were fixed, how come they change over time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those that would like to eliminate poverty aren’t those making decisions. If laws of economy were fixed, how come they change over time?
They don't. You are confusing "the laws of economics" with "legislation relating to economics". Those are two completely different things. The latter changes, the former doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't. You are confusing "the laws of economics" with "legislation relating to economics". Those are two completely different things. The latter changes, the former doesn't.
They do. Neoliberalism used to be considered a serious theory not that long ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do. Neoliberalism used to be considered a serious theory not that long ago.
Our knowledge of the laws of economics changes. The laws themselves don't because they are simply logical consequences of the laws of physics. The latter doesn't change, so neither does the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our knowledge of the laws of economics changes. The laws themselves don't because they are simply logical consequences of the laws of physics. The latter doesn't change, so neither does the former.
Again - physics is not man-made, economics is. We don’t discover economics, we invent it.
Economics is likewise constrained by natural law. This why, for example, you cannot eliminate poverty by printing fiat currency and giving it to poor people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again - physics is not man-made, economics is. We don’t discover economics, we invent it.
But all of our inventions are constrained by physics. We invent airplanes too, we do not invent the laws of aerodynamics. We invent electronics, we do not invent the laws of electrodynamics. Economics is likewise constrained by natural law. This why, for example, you cannot eliminate poverty by printing fiat currency and giving it to poor people.
Are you saying UBI can’t eliminate poverty?