Which ideology is the best at economics?

Post Reply New Topic

Since we had all sorts of economics threads, now the question comes to WP members to now vote on which political ideology they regard as most competent in their knowledge of economics. "Competent in knowledge of economics" is not so much a question of right answers, but rather knowledge of economic theory, and/or other things related to academic economics.

I plan on using the same categories as an earlier political affiliation poll, except, I will drop Marxist, as I see it as a sub-category of socialist.

Depends on what goals you're seeking to accomplish with your economy.

On average, probably Libertarians, as the great bulk of people are just completely ignorant of economics, and this includes liberals, conservatives, etc. Both fascist and socialist ideas basically demand a misunderstanding of economics. Libertarians are often (very loosely) acquainted with basic economic notions. The issue is that the average Libertarian, while still more knowledgeable than the typical liberal or conservative, is still not knowledgeable enough to really inform their political viewpoints with accurate economic understanding.

No, "goals" don't matter for an understanding of economics. It is a knowledge question, not intention. If you think that there is a divergence, "liberals know more macro, socialists more developmental, libertarians more micro, etc", then judge what you think is a more essential understanding.

Also, being able to parrot information from economists is not equivalent to understanding economics yourself. It's one thing to cherry pick arguments from historical economists that support your preconceived ideology and another to be able to work out the math and empirically prove that you are correct. I'm readily willing to accept that the latter is outside of my realm of ability since I have not devoted a career to studying economic theory. I also think I have a good reason to distrust ideological cherry-pickers and parroters.

I misunderstood your question when I voted socialist. Probably libertarian just in the sense of that it's essential to be able to build up from small to big. People who start off with socialist ideals have no concept of how the micro works and how, applied the wrong way, can stifle the economy. But at the same time, if a libertarian remains stagnant in their stance as things scale up, society ends up suffering and eventually you end up with a reasonable reality facsimile* of what's described in Jennifer Government.


*In essence, not as extreme as the fictional work described but something more like what reality would dictate would happen with such growth and monopolization of power through wealth.

I'd expect the centre-left and conservatives to tie for second place in overall understanding, while right-libertarians would have the best overall understanding. Conservatives would be stronger on microeconomics than the centre-left, right-libertarians would be much stronger on microeconomics than either conservatives or the centre-left, while the centre-left would be strongest on macroeconomics - outperforming conservatives and outperforming right-libertarians by a bit there..

Most basic economic theory isn't actually math, it is illustrated using math, and a few insights are very mathematical, but for the most part it is somewhat irrelevant, sort of just a rationalized structure more than much else. Empirics is usually less of an issue in understanding the structure of any field, that is to say that there are empirical researchers, but most people are only exposed to theory for any field anyway, regardless of what the field is.

(Note: the requirement of "working it out" really doesn't work well in most cases of basic knowledge anyway.)

You make a really good point. Very intuitive. In laizze-faire capitalism, by it's very definition, you will have a tendency towards monopolization as the "winners" eventually buy out the "losers" at which point there is no longer any competitive incentive. At this point growth has to stagnate as companies have already maximized their share of the market. Increasing demand on a global scale is much more difficult during economic downturns when people simply don't have the money to spend on new things.

If theories can't be put to the test they remain philosophical rather than factual. Also "basic economic theory" only applies to the real world fully in an idealized setting.

It's also way to easy to politicize economics when the real world system is so complex and subtle that the determination of causal relations is difficult. I'd think having some kind of a mathematical framework, even if it's necessarily imperfect, is imperative to a good theory. People's qualitative intuitive grasp of causal relationships in economics simply isn't good enough to answer questions such as "did the stimulus have an effect", or answer whether any specific policy has had a positive, negative, or neutral affect. Not even the "experts" can answer these questions on intuition alone. Without an actual quantitative empirical/mathematical framework we're all swimming in muddy water.

I would contend that it is math. It's true that for a basic understanding it's not necessary to know the empirical parameter values, or even the functional forms, in any detail, but to make useful predictions the math is needed. You can get a general understanding without the mathematical knowledge, just as you can generally understand gravity without the mathematical knowledge, but that doesn't make the science nonmathematical.


The issue is not really that the problem is so complex and subtle; that's what engineering approximations are for. The problem, at its root, is with politics, where whether what one says sounds good is more important than whether it has any basis in fact.

Your poll doesn't have the option I would choose: it depends on where in the combined economic/social cycle the world economy is.

I don't remember the specifics of what fit where, but I do remember how one of my economics professors in the way back when neatly laid out how different economic approaches had been applied with success at the right points in the economic/social cycle, but had failed in the wrong points. All theories could be shown to have times they worked, and times they didn't, because they all assume certain underlying facts, and fail when those underlying facts are not true. Since underlying facts change with time, so does the best applicable economic theory.

Sometimes you need conservative leadership leadership; sometimes you need liberal leadership. The trick is to get the right one at the right time. This is something that has always made sense to me; life doesn't respond to one size fits all approaches any better than children do.

The option I would choose would be None of the above - I can't see any ideology that has consistently done well. Those that have done best seem to mostly alternate from left to right around some pole I can't make out, but without exception (I'd have mentioned Finland, but they're not tracking quite so well these days) they make some godawfully bad decisions sometimes.

Economics is the study of the inter-relationship of production and consumption and attempts to determine how that can be managed and to what ends. If you deny the necessity to determine the ends the question is meaningless. it is like asking what type of automobile is best and the range can encompass a motorcycle, a farm tractor, a suburban civilian vehicle, a massive truck, a tank, a combination car and light plane ad probably many more. Each type of vehicle has its uses and purposes. Various systems of economics determine the type of society you desire. There is a wide range.

None of them work really well. So the question should be what is the least worst system.

ruveyn

I think that I should get two votes, and so should everyone else.

Some of the options are political and others economic. Considering that long term economic success is dependent on a combination of economics and politics (political-economy), being only able to chose one is insufficient.