Traditionally/generally speaking, economists do not go by left or right, rather by the amount of state intervention they advocate for in the markets. With that being said, there used to be a division in that the left tended to advocate for state intervention and the right was more pro free-markets. The past few years there has been a shift in this, in that the right has started to advocate for government intervention in the markets, namely, the whole fiasco of US republicans with the Trump lead anti trade policies. Therefore, only a fraction on the right advocates for free markets (traditional conservatives and libertarians).
In academia however, - strictly speaking - the past few decades, economists generally(again), their views are getting converged more and more. In simple terms, right now, the dust has settled whether the markets are good or not, no sane economist will tell you that there's a better alternative to markets. Generally the accepted view point is that the government should provide the frameworks within which the private sector operates, this is not something new however, this has been known for quiet some time and not even Keynes or anyone else disputed this point. The idea behind is that people act with self interest which provides them gain, which provides the first problem for (new and very old) left economics - incentive. If results didn't differ from action why bother? The second one from "common" economy is the information distribution. No single central government can poses what every person on the state wants, that is without even totalitarian means. Even if by some godly miracle this information can be obtained, the incentive to act upon this information will always be a problem, making a left economy impossible. Or said differently, the common "economy" fails in the very basic of the premise " from each according to their skills and to each according to their needs". While it sounds fantastic, it is simply impossible to dictate someone's skills through coercive subjective means. And don't get me started on the needs bit. 100 years ago a need would be bread, water and shelter now if you offer even the staunches commies that, they won't settle for anything less then their apple products.
Now the modern differences - in academia at least - stem from fiscal policies, externalities and behavioral economics of the private markets - especially in finance investing and market bubbles.
Generally speaking, the economists on the right (and majority of academics) advocate for government dictating monetary policy, low tax as stimulus as well as free trade. The reason for this (and this is what I think as well) is that wherever the government can intervene, it is prone to be corrupted, and choose favorites as well as inefficient (For example, if the government can choose which industries are to be protected and which not from foreign competition, it will choose the ones which voted for him or for political gain ie. trump with the steel industry which has eaten into the margins of the manufacturing industries which use the said product , another example is the tariffs that our wee kosovo has retardly put, which has lead to customs officers accepting bribes from imports and now you have the products and have managed to irritate the international community). If the government can print money for fiscal stimulus, it may invest in regions in which their voter base is, diluting purchasing ability of the others in form of inflation.
On the other hand, same could be said about tax cuts, however, implementing a tax cut is quite easier to implement than bureocrats distributing money, moreover, if someone gets a tax cut, he gets more of his own money back, rather than getting it from someone else.
Now the bits where the old left triumphed and are to large extent accepted in the mainstream - Behavioral Economics and some Externalities. The main bit which the whole market economy is based, is the rationality of the consumer. Many economists however, have found that in some cases the people do not behave rationally, but the remedies are far less of what your average youtube leftist would leave you to believe. A professor from Chicago University (though business and not economics) which is known for being neo-liberal and anti keynesian, won a nobel price for economics for his work in behavioral economics. His example is quite funny and illustrative of when a government intervention is needed.
As Thaler explains in his latest book, Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, the guests while waiting with cocktails for the meal, were devouring the cashews—the entire bowl half-eaten in minutes. So Thaler, worried that his guests would fill up on the salty snacks, whisked the bowl away.
He recalled that when he came back, his friends thanked him for it (and found themselves with room to enjoy a big dinner)
Behavioralist perspectives have attained wide currency in the world of private pension planning. Instead of asking employees to opt in to pension savings plans, many companies and nonprofits now automatically enroll employees and offer them the opportunity to opt out. Changing the default has drastically raised the uptake of pension deductions among workers while increasing their long-term savings, Thaler writes in Misbehaving. This is the “nudge” in the right direction that people need.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/fall-2015/features/a-bowl-of-cashews
Another instance is deflationary cycles which could get vicious if no fiscal stimulus is inserted, externalities like pollution and building houses that would stop the sun light from getting in your houses and lastly drugs (opiods) which would stop the consumer from acting rationally. While the right is filled with plenty of idiots, the left is even more so. I mean all the successful utopias they quote stem from some country advantage rather than sound public policy. The money generated from oil revenues are mistaken for good economics, and once shit hits the fan, free money runs out, corruption grows and the countries collapse. It is not a problem peculiar to past communists, to present day ones as well such as most recently Venezuela. Deducing from all I said, the ones that want economic freedom are libertarians, and the ones that want government dictating the economy are communists/fascists and Varoufakis calls him self anarcho-communist. If that is not an oxymoron than i do not know what is. He is full of bs statements and needless to say, no one really takes him seriously. No one takes AOC seriously either, neither they take Bernie seriously. The few renegades that make it in the news are those with outlandish claims of nonsense bottom 20% chat(as if it is mathematically possible to erase statistical categories), or the ones that speak of "super rich" and so on. Capitalism has raised the fortune of billions of people, liberated billions around the world, it is the reason why plebs like us have a voice and live better than kings in 15th centuries (unless you are a sadist and would rather prefer to lead the life of a wicked king because literally nothing they had then -minus executing people powers- is better than ours, nothing.
As a fitting ending,
Compare these statistics with the murderous regimes that communism has brought, the forced labour camps, the misery to our people and so on. Just because instead of of two people, each getting 10$ capitalism has made it possible for one to get 100$ and the other 1500$ does not mean it is not working, we take for granted the existing wealth it has created and vilified it beyond measures, especially considering the alternative. No matter how big the urge is to act as if we are strategical masters in dictating policy and winning interstates disputes, perhaps we should stick to the most sound policies which are not as emotionally pleasing.
By the way, you sound like kyrie irving quoting youtube videos to shape your economics views
.
10 years of FIF
Nostradamus
Most Passionate Member
Forum Supporter
