Best Economists in History?

Definition of economics
1a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
https://usdebtclock.org/
delusdcl.jpg

b : economic theory, principles, or practices sound economics
2 : economic aspect or significance the economics of building a new stadium
3 : economic conditions current economics
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics
 
piezoe said:
You'll be pleased to know that these most recent posts of yours have cleared up any doubts I had with regard to whether you are "a wee bit nuts"; you are. May I suggest some reading for you that will bring you up to date on supply side economics: "Zombie Economics", by John Quiggin, the Australian economist and Academic. Ricardo is long dead, Barro isn't. Ricardo was obviously not totally nuts, because he had enough sense to be suspicious of the validity of Ricardian equivalence. Is Barro nuts, probably not, but why then did he bother with Ricardian Equivalence? You, however, at least for me, have removed all doubt.
More...

You have inferred that I somehow have holding in these views or that they are my own. I merely explained that they are economists and put forward work, which is not what my school of economic thought is about. Supply side economics was very influential in the 80s and 90s and gains popularity again and again throughout history. However it is not my own thinking on the matter, my school of economic thought is a progressive school of economic thought in which I put forward economic theories and develop new tools to offer new opportunities in economic development. You seem to attribute other work to mine and claim that I am 'nuts', even though I simply explained what another group of economists have produced.
 
Marx did not do much aside from repackaging Adam Smith in a class warfare wrapper. Added value 'theory' is not really his at all. The guy had too many complexes and turned his self-hate onto the world he lived in. There he is one many throughout the history of humankind. Yet another entitled intellectual with a vengeance agenda. Lenin followed up with his "Materialism and Empiriociticism" or 'how to become a philosopher in 9 months instead of making a healthy baby', so this brainless bartender Alexandra Cortez could claim to be another economist and a problem solving thinker.
 
apdxyk said:
Marx did not do much aside from repackaging Adam Smith in a class warfare wrapper. Added value 'theory' is not really his at all. The guy had too many complexes and turned his self-hate onto the world he lived in. There he is one many throughout the history of humankind. Yet another entitled intellectual with a vengeance agenda. Lenin followed up with his "Materialism and Empiriociticism" or 'how to become a philosopher in 9 months instead of making a healthy baby', so this brainless bartender Alexandra Cortez could claim to be another economist and a problem solving thinker.
More...
She is young, and there is much to learn. This, however, will strike terror into your heart. She is so charismatic, but not in the TV-Evangelist way that Trump is, that she's quite likely to be your President someday. Hell, I'd vote for her over Trump right now, but then I'd vote for my goldfish over Trump. As it is, I'll have to vote for Joe. I much prefer mild dementia over sociopathic narcissism -- an unlovely choice, but definitely not a Hobson's choice...
 
morganist said:
You have inferred that I somehow have holding in these views or that they are my own. I merely explained that they are economists and put forward work, which is not what my school of economic thought is about. Supply side economics was very influential in the 80s and 90s and gains popularity again and again throughout history. However it is not my own thinking on the matter, my school of economic thought is a progressive school of economic thought in which I put forward economic theories and develop new tools to offer new opportunities in economic development. You seem to attribute other work to mine and claim that I am 'nuts', even though I simply explained what another group of economists have produced.
More...
 

I don't understand why you have just posted what I posted. You claim I am nuts for explaining work that someone else has produced, which would make them influential in economics. Why does that make me nuts?
 
morganist said:
I don't understand why you have just posted what I posted. You claim I am nuts for explaining work that someone else has produced, which would make them influential in economics. Why does that make me nuts?
More...
it was an error. sorry. See my post #40 above. Get back in touch once you have read Quiggin's book.
 
piezoe said:
it was an error. sorry. See my post #40 above. Get back in touch once you have read Quiggin's book.
More...

I have come to the conclusion that the main problem with economics is that economists have not appreciated the impact pension saving has on the economy, in particular the impact pension saving has on rates of consumption and aggregate prices. In my work the Pension Problem I addressed this issue and put forward new pension reforms. Since this has happened in the UK the economic targets have been more closely adhered to than any other period of time I am aware of.

It makes me wonder why pension saving has not been managed before, it can also help to stabilise the investment market by changing the requirements of pension fund investment portfolios, which has also happened in the UK, where secured fixed return investments have been extended. Just saying it has to be new or why would the economic outcomes be so out of line with the set targets before they started controlling pension saving in the UK and then suddenly hit the targets when pension saving became managed?
 
morganist said:
I have come to the conclusion that the main problem with economics is that economists have not appreciated the impact pension saving has on the economy, in particular the impact pension saving has on rates of consumption and aggregate prices. In my work the Pension Problem I addressed this issue and put forward new pension reforms. Since this has happened in the UK the economic targets have been more closely adhered to than any other period of time I am aware of.

It makes me wonder why pension saving has not been managed before, it can also help to stabilise the investment market by changing the requirements of pension fund investment portfolios, which has also happened in the UK, where secured fixed return investments have been extended. Just saying it has to be new or why would the economic outcomes be so out of line with the set targets before they started controlling pension saving in the UK and then suddenly hit the targets when pension saving became managed?
More...
You sir do have a one track mind about pension saving.

But as a layperson, I like your thesis and admire your persistence in the face of many here throwing rotten eggs at you. Have a good day and don't let us discourage you from preaching your ideas.
 
ironchef said:
You sir do have a one track mind about pension saving.

But as a layperson, I like your thesis and admire your persistence in the face of many here throwing rotten eggs at you. Have a good day and don't let us discourage you from preaching your ideas.
More...

In the UK it has become the school of economic thought of choice and proven to be effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top