which is why you will remain an idiot.

Not a bad idea.. I'll do this! TONIGHT
Hollindagin is an intense stoned listen. Really great

Listen to it on ROBO.

If economics is the study of human behavior, it's a very limited view....an extreme case of tunnel vision that considers only certain motivations from a particular cultural viewpoint. Human behavior is infinitely more complicated than the view taken by economics, which makes basic assumptions about social choice and the maximization of utility, and reduces human behavior down to mechanical, perfunctory decisions. I'm not saying it's not useful, but THE study of human behavior it isn't.

Godamn cough syrup? It's no goood!

that's right. it's the study of human behavior in the context of scarcity.

i never said it was 'THE study of human behavior', and when hayden brought up psych, i never said to disregard it, but we arent talking about psych....the thing i quoted before from wiki was talking about economic anthropology....it is a basis, an 'origin' if you will...without human behavior, what would economics be?

First,

And second, yes, economics involves human beings. You've successfully proven that economics was not given to us by aliens. Really, what are you talking about? Most of the comments made here were about capitalism's (which is a critique of a sytem of economics, not economics as a whole) nature to reward and encourage unethical actions but you called us hippies who don't know what we're talking about. But if I had to peg down a point in your ellipses-choked nonsense, I think you are attempting to justify capitalism by saying that economics is a result of human nature. True, but what isn't and how does this exempt it from being morally accountable? Murder has a basis in human nature, even more so than economics. Does that mean that I should be allowed to murder a man right now? No. Your point is irrelevant and you're an idiot.

the system isn't that bad.. just the all-i-want-is-your-fucking-money people..

Come now...."THE study of human behavior" is extremely different from "...is the study of human behavior"...this is stupid that you even forced me to differentiate between the 2, but doesn't "THE" imply an absolute? Meaning 'the' in ALL CAPS implies an absolute...just to be clear.

Also, my first post in this thread was semi-jest...I thought my use of 'hippies' and my irreverent nonsensical tone might imply that...i dont even remember what the 1st page of this thread is about...i'll go back and read it and see if i was trying to make a point...

ok looking back now, I know why I said it...the first page is just discouraging...the posts by you {bradley}, and cardinal rob, and sarramkrop, and racehorse were probably what made me say what i said...

Rob said: "Once the money gets a higher priority than the people, we know we have a problem."....and this is probably what irked me into responding with econ being about human behaviour (ie-people/people's choices)...and capitalism even more so, as it is essentially freedom of choice (in economic thought)....

you writing:"school of thought that promotes greed and impatience as virtues and modesty and compassion as vices."...also ties into my human behavior post...there is nothing wrong with the economic principle, but rather, the corrupt people who are in charge of big businesses...And people are greedy and impatient and uncompassionate in any walk of life, why is it surprising that this also spills into economics?

I dont even know why I responded to this in the first place...its all been said before....Bush is destroying the earth, capitalism is destroying the earth, America is destroying the earth...etc, etc...ad nauseum...yawn....

I think I'm going to like the weather today. I will have a fun filled work day.

What you are basically saying is that they are two different studies but are irremediably tied to each other. In any case, I'm already bored of this discussion. It's only the internet , after all.

Hey, all i know is Adam Smith is turning over in his grave right now over his ideas of capitalism being so bastardized b/c it was about a nation's interests. We could use some good ol' nationalism in this area. It's the same old story when people with money and power at the top have free reign at the expense of the nations interest. That's why immigration is a disaster, outsourcing and the like..and right now the govt is in bed with these people..

I never said I was surprised at the existence of corruption. I'm surprised by how the system naturally promotes corruption. There's a difference. Greed is what drives capitalism, there is no doubt to this point. It operates under the assumption that everyone operates in their own self interest, which is a kind way of saying Greed. It doesn't spill in, it is generated. This greed then goes on to inspire more injustices.

But whatever, I'm tired of talking business ethics.

yeah!

those people always exist though, in all systems. In socialist systems, they are the leaders and bureaucrats.


No, no, no, no, no. You couldn't be more wrong! Adam Smith crafted his treatise on the Wealth of Nations to illustrate all the reasons why nationalist economic systems don't work. The global economic system prior to Smith was one of mercantilism - in which nations hoarded gold and favored & protected their industries - often poorly performing ones. (we still have a lot of work to do in this area, as we continue to subsidize the hell out of a multitude of industries.)

You have to remember that he was writing in a time before global communication and travel was as easy as it is today. Back in his time, some global trading would have been much more difficult and much more expensive - the technology just didn't exist yet. He lived in an agrarian society, and his examples were skewed to that life. The principles that he argued have absolutely nothing to do with keeping economic systems within political boundaries.

Smith and David Ricardo showed us two things (among many more): first - that gold does not equal wealth, and second - the concept of comparative advantage. They showed us precisely why we shouldn't protect domestic industries if a peaceful trading partner could perform with lower opportunity costs. They both knew that nations are artificial, even though they didn't explicitly state it.

Smith was, on the other hand, very wary of capitalists - not the capitalist system though. He saw them as a necessary evil. He said we should always be concerned when capitalists meet together because it usually ends with them conspiring to raise prices. Smith also had some other anti-complete free market sentiments. Many people and economists agree with him, many don't.

!@#$%!, king of maturity.

thank you. i'm wise that way. you can further express your admiration by sending a check for $500 to my name.

"although they sell themselves Jah, for thirty pieces of silver.."

Bollocks. Wrong, but most incredibly wrong about this comment "The principles that he argued have absolutely nothing to do with keeping economic systems within political boundaries".

Someone needs to dust off their Wealth of Nations. Yes, his thoughts are a product of his times. But he mentions society at key points, suggesting that by possessing capital people are led to investing their capital in their domestic (ie national) economies, even though market signals might suggest that they might get a higher return from investing in foreign industry. Smith's message is very different from the popular understanding of it; mainly that greed, including the following of market price for the sole purpose of maximising individual profit, is best both for individuals and their communities. Rather, his message is that our social consciences lead us to re-evaluate our self-interest, without our being fully conscious of the process.

He took for granted a social conciousness for the good of the nation, which is why capitalism today has no soul.

yeah yeah, capitalism sucks, i've heard it all. well, guess what? life's a bitch and then you die, so there's no use in complaining.
sorry about my bleak point of view.

Cananky!

edit-Cantanky!



ps-im drunk

rupert murdoch

ow. yes. agreeed. that fucking rotten bastard...

I think you're wrong, and I'm willing to bet that I've read Wealth of Nations many more times than you have (in it's entirety - which is not a good idea by the way - only about 3 or 4 chapters have anything with real substance.), and have been barraged with more interpretations of the book than you can imagine.

Smith didn't necessarily prefer domestic industries, nor did he say that we should. He said, "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Basically, he argued that people naturally prefer to invest in domestic industry for self-interested reasons. The byproduct being that society was better off because of his self-interested actions. What he is saying is that if you want to make the society you live in better off, invest in domestic industry, and by all means do not let governments interfere in economic decision-making. The reasoning behind his seeming preference for domestic over foreign is moral, not economic. And it is mostly a sign of the times under the British Empire.

But I ask why does it matter which society is better off? What if I want to make people far away better off? If a person directs funds to foreign industry, he is simply making another part of the global society better off. All people deserve to be better off, who are you or anyone else to say where people should invest their money?

I don't agree with any of the reasoning for economic nationalism, as it stems from the idea that people from one country should be preferred over those from another. Why? What separates some humans from others other than their coincidental birthplaces?

If you listen to and start to dig through the nationalist economic arguments that exist today, coming from the likes of Lou Dobbs and the Economic Policy Institute, you might see them for what they are: nothing more than glorified mercantilism based on faulty assumptions. The main error being that they believe in order for comparative advantage to exist, labor must not be allowed to move freely.

This is entirely false. It is a falsity based on another false assumpion - that nation states are a prerequisite for trade. "National economies" are arbitrary. Sure they're real, but they're defined by imaginary boundaries.

Answer me this: Why does an American farmer, chairmaker, auto manufacturer, etc. deserve a government granted advantage over his counterpart in another country? What is it that makes him so much more deserving of money that we must remove his competition by subsidizing him?

Things Adam Smith argued against: tariffs, subsidies, and another other government policies that granted favor to one producer over another.