Which in your opinion is the best economic policy?

[Thomas]

State them below

[Kingpoleon]

What do you mean? Economic theory? Or a list of economic policies?

[Thomas]

What do you mean? Economic theory? Or a list of economic policies?

Economic theory

[136or142]

Neo classical obviously.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Friedmanian Economics

[President Johnson]

Generally speaking, some centrist third-way economic policy or the Social market economy. Support small and medium sized businesses, not too much bureaucracy but strong/effective regulations for the banking sector and big business. Government interventions were necessary, for example to promote green energy.

Tax system should be progressive. And a counter-cyclical fiscal policy: Lower taxes and government stimulus during a recession and higher taxes and interest rates in economically sound times. Deficits should only be made in bad years to stimulate the economy. In good years, the depth should be paid back. The ideal way is to save money during economic booms and use these savings in a recession so that budgets are mostly balanced. The government should also function effectively with lean processes to save money.

[136or142]

Mainstream economists by definition believe that there are only two sound or valid economic policy prescriptions
1.Centrist liberal neo classical economics
2.Centrist conservative "Eisenhower" economics modified by Friedman Monetarist (Monetary policy) positions. (Eisenhower predated monetarism.)

The difference between the two is that centrist conservatives believe that total government spending should be a smaller amount of GDP than centrist liberals do.  Most neo classicists also believe that there is no problem with small annual deficits for capital spending, whereas the more hardline centrist conservatives believe the total government spending should be balanced every year.

As far as I can tell, most centrist conservative political parties in countries outside the U.S largely follow some form Monetarist modified Eisenhower economics (some may embrace capital deficits or deficit spending during recessions) but, with the election of Ronald Reagan, the United States bypassed this and went to the idiocy of 'trickle down' economics.

By definition, but, as far as I'm concerned, through experience, every other economic policy theory is heterodox.

'Progressive' Post Keynesian and modern conservative 'trickle down' economics are essentially two sides of the same coin.  Post Keynesians believe that government spending 'pays for itself' while 'trickle down' believe that 'tax cuts pay for themselves.  Both of these fail the most basic (mainstream) economic argument that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch.'

Beyond that there is the goofiness on the further left of socialism (government ownership of the 'commanding heights' of the economy) and communism (full government ownership of the economy.)  (Those are the economic definitions, political scientists have different definitions of 'socialism' and 'communism' based on the writings of Marx.)  There is also the goofiness of some of the extreme right of libertarian or 'Austrian School' economics which isn't so much an economic theory as a ideologically based prescription that 'Austrian School' economics has the correct 'rules' for how an economy should operate, and the actual aggregate consequences are unimportant.

[136or142]

As an addendum to my previous post:
1.I had a discussion with a person who argued with me on my definition of 'socialism.'  He was one of those goofballs who believe that liberals, socialists and communists are all the same.  He told me that he looked up 'socialism' and 'commanding heights' and could find no such view that socialists believe in government ownership of the 'commanding heights' of the economy and that this must therefore be my own personal definition of socialism.  I took out my first year macroeconomics textbook and read where it said that socialists believe in a 'mixed economy.'  I gather that is the term that socialists use to describe their economic prescription rather than 'commanding heights.'  

The problem I have with that term is that outside of communists who believe government should own everything and hardline libertarians who don't believe government should own anything, is that every other economic philosophy believes in a 'mixed economy.'  It's really such a broad term that it's meaningless.

2.The reason Austrian School Libertarians believe the idea that the economy should be governed by an unchanging set of the 'correct rules' (and of course, that only they know what these 'correct rules' are) is the reason why they worship the economist Ludwig Von Mises.  

Von Mises was a decent economist who did some groundbreaking theorizing, but ultimately he's a pretty minor economist and Libertarians don't worship him over that.  They worship him because he's the creator of a philosophical idea called 'Praxeology' which argues that social science arguments can't be verified or falsified, and so all a social scientist can do is come up with a bunch of rules and then argue in favor of them.  Of course, that's exactly what Austrian School Libertarians do.

[john1565]

I think there should be a balance between capitalism and communism.

[Sadader]

There’s not really any point choosing one school, they address different things, but I’d have to say Neoclassical and New Keynesianism synthesis if I had to choose.
For policy, I personally think that the US should abolish everything to start with, implement a large carbon tax, various smaller pigouvian taxes (e.g. sugar), a progressive VAT, and a land value tax for revenue. Spending should be focused on a generous EITC, various mild welfare funds, a reformed SS system like Australia’s, military spending, a multipayer healthcare system like Germany’s (in American discourse this is a “Singlepayer” system), infrastructure, and whatever other small things there are. Open borders (in the form of an unlimited visa policy, not just abolishing borders and letting Al-Baghdadi run across, powerless to stop him). And then we have reached perfection.

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

I think there should be a balance between capitalism and communism.

like how? worker co ops and a market system?

[Karpatsky]

It depends heavily on the type of economy. There is a solid argument to be made that Stalinist command economy cannot be beat in terms of increased standard of living in undeveloped, resource-based economies.

[Sadader]

It depends heavily on the type of economy. There is a solid argument to be made that Stalinist command economy cannot be beat in terms of increased standard of living in undeveloped, resource-based economies.

That’s not true Read “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle” by Krugman.. Growth achieved early on in the USSR did manage to mobilise resources and achiev short term economic growth (but this was just utilising the slack, there was no productivity growth and a brick wall was hit pretty fast), but economies like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore post WW2 managed to mobilise resources more effectively, and achieve sustained productivity growth over the long term.

[Karpatsky]

It depends heavily on the type of economy. There is a solid argument to be made that Stalinist command economy cannot be beat in terms of increased standard of living in undeveloped, resource-based economies.

That’s not true Read “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle” by Krugman.. Growth achieved early on in the USSR did manage to mobilise resources and achiev short term economic growth (but this was just utilising the slack, there was no productivity growth and a brick wall was hit pretty fast), but economies like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore post WW2 managed to mobilise resources more effectively, and achieve sustained productivity growth over the long term.

You should reread it, because that's the opposite of the argument being made - the article compares the Asian EOI strategies to the Soviet-style economy in that they both increase mobilization of resources without significantly increasing productivity. The slowdown of such countries as predicted in the article is a consequence of a changing economy - much like the Soviet economy, which could not keep up with increasing complexity and prioritized military spending over quality of life.

[Sadader]

It depends heavily on the type of economy. There is a solid argument to be made that Stalinist command economy cannot be beat in terms of increased standard of living in undeveloped, resource-based economies.

That’s not true Read “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle” by Krugman.. Growth achieved early on in the USSR did manage to mobilise resources and achiev short term economic growth (but this was just utilising the slack, there was no productivity growth and a brick wall was hit pretty fast), but economies like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore post WW2 managed to mobilise resources more effectively, and achieve sustained productivity growth over the long term.

You should reread it, because that's the opposite of the argument being made - the article compares the Asian EOI strategies to the Soviet-style economy in that they both increase mobilization of resources without significantly increasing productivity. The slowdown of such countries as predicted in the article is a consequence of a changing economy - much like the Soviet economy, which could not keep up with increasing complexity and prioritized military spending over quality of life.

The argument I was making is that Soviet early growth (which recieves undesrrved praise) was the same, if not inferior, to growth of the Asian Tigers. and since the Soviet Union uniquely failed to achieve productivity growth due to its economic system, it slowed down more than these other economies (to a halt). My overall point is that SK/Japan style development and dustained growth is far superior, because it mobilises resources and achieves productivty growth.

(all the economies slowed down, but the Soviet Union had by far the lowest post-input growth, so the best course of action for deveopment isn’t Stalinist)

[Republican Left]

For now I'm going to go with free markets (but models like the social market economy look interesting) so long as equity concerns are addressed.

[136or142]

It depends heavily on the type of economy. There is a solid argument to be made that Stalinist command economy cannot be beat in terms of increased standard of living in undeveloped, resource-based economies.

That’s not true Read “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle” by Krugman.. Growth achieved early on in the USSR did manage to mobilise resources and achiev short term economic growth (but this was just utilising the slack, there was no productivity growth and a brick wall was hit pretty fast), but economies like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore post WW2 managed to mobilise resources more effectively, and achieve sustained productivity growth over the long term.

You should reread it, because that's the opposite of the argument being made - the article compares the Asian EOI strategies to the Soviet-style economy in that they both increase mobilization of resources without significantly increasing productivity. The slowdown of such countries as predicted in the article is a consequence of a changing economy - much like the Soviet economy, which could not keep up with increasing complexity and prioritized military spending over quality of life.

The argument I was making is that Soviet early growth (which recieves undesrrved praise) was the same, if not inferior, to growth of the Asian Tigers. and since the Soviet Union uniquely failed to achieve productivity growth due to its economic system, it slowed down more than these other economies (to a halt). My overall point is that SK/Japan style development and dustained growth is far superior, because it mobilises resources and achieves productivty growth.

(all the economies slowed down, but the Soviet Union had by far the lowest post-input growth, so the best course of action for deveopment isn’t Stalinist)

I would expect there was some genuine growth in heavy industry because I'm sure even a command system can do pretty well at expanding productive capacity in one single directed industry (like steel) that has a largely uniform production.

It's when the command system tries to go to even just two industries with the same basic inputs that it starts running into problems because there are no price signals so it can be expected that the command system would have put an oversupply of inputs into one of those industries and an undersupply into the other.

[progressive85]

I like the idea of wealth redistribution for the very sake of spreading it around.

Have a government, first of all, that cares more about the poor than the rich.  Trickle up economics - if you give the people at the bottom money, the people at the top will benefit as well.

There's no point in having a consumerist, commercialized, capitalist economy if the people at the bottom don't have purchasing power.

The bottom 90% of Americans should see their taxes dramatically reduced and their wages dramatically increased.

And people should be encouraged to spend only what they have - and they should have a lot more than they do now.  I don't believe in credit.

Always have a balanced budget.  Surpluses should be saved for things that we might need down the road (like a depression or a war).

[Sadader]

Always have a balanced budget.  Surpluses should be saved for things that we might need down the road (like a depression or a war).

So you mean have countercyclical policy? So no balanced budgets then?

[ProudNativist]

A low flat tax (15% or below), much deregulation, trade deals that allow America to make money and not being ripped off and prevent China and others from dumping their bad products into our country. Less globalism and more nationalist policy. Pretty much Donald Trump's policy or Reagan except for trade. And privatize social security and healthcare. Socialized medicine only leads to high prices and bad quality.

[progressive85]

Always have a balanced budget.  Surpluses should be saved for things that we might need down the road (like a depression or a war).

So you mean have countercyclical policy? So no balanced budgets then?

I think the government should have enough funds to pay for everything that needs to be paid for and also save whatever's left over.  Save a little every year for down the road.  Wars should not be spent with a credit card.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

A low flat tax (15% or below), much deregulation, trade deals that allow America to make money and not being ripped off and prevent China and others from dumping their bad products into our country. Less globalism and more nationalist policy. Pretty much Donald Trump's policy or Reagan except for trade. And privatize social security and healthcare. Socialized medicine only leads to high prices and bad quality.

Great depression two, electric bugaloo! Finally my apocalypse prepping will pay off.

[PSOL]

Basically what economists already view as mainstream, new Keynesian synthesis. In terms of policy decisions what the social democratic parties not turning liberalslite  ask for.

[parochial boy]

Always have a balanced budget.  Surpluses should be saved for things that we might need down the road (like a depression or a war).

So you mean have countercyclical policy? So no balanced budgets then?

I think the government should have enough funds to pay for everything that needs to be paid for and also save whatever's left over.  Save a little every year for down the road.  Wars should not be spent with a credit card.

Can we please, please drop the household budget fallacy? That isn't how government expenditure and debt actually works (hint - it is very acceptable to run a deficit in "normal" times)

[warandwar]

Wertkritik

[Jersey Jimmy]

I like the idea of wealth redistribution for the very sake of spreading it around.

Have a government, first of all, that cares more about the poor than the rich.  Trickle up economics - if you give the people at the bottom money, the people at the top will benefit as well.

There's no point in having a consumerist, commercialized, capitalist economy if the people at the bottom don't have purchasing power.

The bottom 90% of Americans should see their taxes dramatically reduced and their wages dramatically increased.

And people should be encouraged to spend only what they have - and they should have a lot more than they do now.  I don't believe in credit.

Always have a balanced budget.  Surpluses should be saved for things that we might need down the road (like a depression or a war).

This is pretty much perfect. Democrats desperately need to run on an economic platform like this.