Economics includes a plethora of schools of thought, god bless it! But what do the right wingers amongst us support? Orthodox economics, austrian economics etc etc? I have to ask as I've never been sure. For example, Thatcherism- in terms of economic analysis- was actually rather similar to the autonomist anarchist position and its focus on the power of the trade union. What the heck are you?
Of course being hamster quiet is terribly supportive of left wing opinion! Don't make them look good my right wing chums. Bleedin lefties are always too comfortably in knowing their economics. Makes me sick so it does!
Austrian. Lefties don't know modern economics at all. Paul Krugman, world's largest fool/ height ratio, wants to mint trillion dollar coins. How dumb is that?
I'd go cider when I'm being jolly. I'm interested in their justification. Was Thatcherism evil? Its not language I'd use. But its compatibility, at least in terms of its economic content, with anarchism was at least interesting - - - Updated - - - He's had a big influence on trade theory (essentially hammering home free trade as the best outcome). Don't you celebrate that?
I'm not intersted in the inane hero worship. Would you support the Thatcherite thigh rub for anarchism? The implication is obvious: ideological spunk leads to a lack of economic horrah.
If I knew what you were writing about, I might respond. But I don't. Why not start again, using words of one syllable?
Well heck, be an individual and type what you think. You probably need it, but heck. I'm going to be adventurous and assume you can actually type a comment relevant to the opening post. I know, I know, what a card!
I think you should be thankful that I responded to your post. He who did doesn't seem to have been on topic either. What does that tell you?
Not really, its like a dog owner putting his 'dirt' in the wrong bin. So what school of thought do you support? Don't be shy now. I'm assuming you're just ignorant and want to grunt, but that's just darn bias!
A bad affair! We all have "innocence" and we all are restricted by "arse". However, we should go full pelt nonetheless. Is your right wing school of thought just "ballet dancing without the attempt to kick like an id'jut"?
Either way, let's not have the weak comment. There surely are right wingers with economic comment! I shake in my boots
Bit of a let down really! Not one right winger prepared to talk about their economic stance. Golly, its like they don't have one!
Austrians sound good. What I like is: Start with Free and open trading in every sense then add: The basic common law causes of action we have Truth in labeling causes of action Stiffened penalties for exaggerating experience or qualifications Management of the Commons After that not much, although those are all pretty broad. You can't find a specific case that doesn't get covered by that, or should be covered by government, in my opinion at least. I know OP is crazy about some welfare though.
No understanding of the labour market or the firm. Think it should be taught more mind you. There's way too much focus on neoclassical economics. However, it will be very specific sub-disciplines (e.g. post-Keynesianism is much more useful in critiquing the orthodox approach to the labour market)
I have my own beliefs there, you may challenge them on specifics, I am not interested in a concept debate today. Zimmerman aftermath seems far more interesting then non existent market socialism.
I'd suggest that right wingers often don't have beliefs. They adopt the vocab without knowing the consequences. The classic example is "its supply & demand isn't it", not realising the neoclassical analysis behind it will typically lead to a modern liberal conclusion (i.e. the need to regulate and the need to intervene)
Oh I wish I could do this today but I am not at all interested. If you have any specific examples other then a welfare need let me know, otherwise I will just assume you think what I posted and you left out of quotes is an ideal example covering everything. Since I can assume we agree, no poit in debate.
No problem, if you've got nothing to say then enjoy the weather! I've just given a specific example. The problem we have is that economics is dominated by the neoclassical school and that undoubtedly leads to support for modern liberalism. This reflects the assumptions made and the necessary focus on market failure
No just more semantics and observations. Let me know when you get a specific example of real world transactions and the like.
You're more incoherent than usual today! The thread has a clear purpose: to examine what school of thought it adopted by right wingers. I don't actually expect to see much comment mind you, given the mainstream of economics is so clearly consistent with modern liberal thought
Is there anything specific you would ever be able to discuss? Ever? Please don't list a bunch of concepts, say something like "car purchases should be regulated such and such a way...or say ..there should be no rules on the purchase or sale of a car". Etc...
You've already tried to contribute to the thread, going for the Austrian cliché. As I said, this is the only option available to right wingers. Neoclassical economics just won't behave! Of course they then trade some concrete ground for a backward overall approach that can only whinge about business cycle theory as it has no understanding of how economic agents interact
