What should the role of government be in the economy?

to govern

the government should control the entire economy

What brand of economics do you subscribe to?

wait nvm

Same person different name, Communist

😂

I think that the Government should foster Competition in the economy and to prevent monopolies from developing

Basically Ordoliberalism

monopolies happen anyway and competition simply means exploiting the worker more

Could you elaborate on that?

after i get out of the shower i will

Alright

What is that?

kek

looks like the WWI memorial thing

Some virgin put a no n word filter but basically some black girl sang at the ww1 armistice event in (I think Berlin) and it’s disrespectful as duck

fuck*

@PebbЛe Could you elaborate as to how monopolies happen anyway and competition simply means exploiting the worker more?

Wtf

Black girl singing in a war between white nations

Mk then

muh turks and indians

@Shalopy Econophysics, especially by Yakovenko show that money in a market economy plays the same role as energy in physics; energy is conserved in collisions between molecules as money is conserved in acts of buying and selling. This is a simple observation but it entails something on a much larger scale of importance -- Thermodynamics at play on the distribution of money. Yakovenko shows that the distribution of money follows the same distribution that energy between molecules does, this is called the Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pugAklByimc/SibYvlTjYuI/AAAAAAAACXQ/X_lmOvGJBJ4/s400/gibbs.JPG

The Yakovenkan equations represented an economy framed as Marx termed, simple commodity production -- buying and selling. The distribution of money following thermodynamics shows that in a basic buying and selling economy wealth aggregates to few hands.

If we follow the praxeology of liberal economies we see that they do not follow simple commodity production but implement other methods of capital accumulation (interest on money, or the hiring of wage labor). This polarizes the income even further.

This brings me to the crux of my point, which can be bifurcated into worker exploitation and the natural occurence of economic power being inseparable from political influence.

Noting the maximal entropy of this distribution, barriers to entry exist all over the place in form of cost advantages such as economies of scale and network externalities. Then it comes to the regulatory protections which I'm sure you've been through that already, that perpetuate an arbitrary ownership of conditions in production.

Many of the monopolies in the west have large amounts of political power and are intertwined within the government greatly, despite the anti-trust actions we've seen against Microsoft and Google by the EU.

The motive of a firm to remain afloat is to fight the general downward rate of profit, and to do this in a competitive scene requires the firm to structure itself to its most profitable. Conventional economists like Samuelson claim that the capital intensity of firm (K/L) is not symptomatic of labor power in terms of profitability, however Farjoun and Machover show empirically with vertically integrated labor coefficents that high labor to capital ratios are more profitable -- ergo the source of structuring the firm to be more profitable required the further exploitation of labor power.

The Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution seems to go hand in hand or maybe it is just another term for the Pareto Distribution, where money over time trends towards fewer and fewer people which I think could be overcome by having a monetary upper and lower limit. Being the excess money made from the upper limit would be given in some form or another to the people on or under the lower limit to supplement or bring them to the lower limit. There would still be inequality, but it would be less than it is now.

@PebbЛe

Redistribution does not solve the issue of very uneven wealth aggregation by virtue of market economies involving buying and selling in the first place

Inequality would not necessarily be less if capital accumulation remains in the same methods

Exploitation of labor power is the basis of profit in industries and the wealth aggregation will always produce natural monopolies that will catalyze in power if it influences government policy or efficiently plays the regulation game

I would argue that the EU would have a very hard time dealing with monopolies considering how much power the EU has and how large it is. If we look at the United States or other single Nations, anti-trust laws and market-share regulation would significantly reduce the power of monopolies. If a market is highly competitive, and saturated with other competition, as well as businesses wouldn't have the ability to control more than a certain portion of the market, in other words power, why would they lobby the government if they can't get more power? The logical end would be that the companies make the best quality items for the cheapest price so that people buy their product since they cannot influence the government.

Anti-trust and market-share regulation would maybe soften network externalities but not cost advantages

A market is not highly competitive with barriers to industry which a market economy will always have with few having the majority of aggregate wealth

It seems that money, in well the sense we are describing here lacks one thing that nature does not, and that is loss and circulation. Everything essentially is concieved as some form of battery, energy goes in and only comes out when needed. However nature does not work that way, energy is released constantly and it therefore flows. There is also a limit to the amount of energy any given thing can store, to store more it must grow in some way or change. there is also another issue of how much energy it can accept at a time or time interval and the rate of exchange of that energy.

As such I agree with the interpretation as a method by which to demonstrate maybe the fundumental issues with said economic system. In a true "thermodynamic" system we would see constant flow, growthm entropy, loss and gain, as well as hard limits to exchange and profits as well as set methods by which something must function in order to function. ergo for example a CEO cant just make 1 trillion dolars and keep it. Rather he will be limited in how much he can aqquire, to aqquire another amount he must invest in his growth (growing the company) and he must also let the money flow so pensions. However due to his hard limit of gain he must increase said pensions in order to prevent money loss. This would be how nature would function.

@Bogatyr Bogumir That is Keynesian perspective. The thermodynamic law is not about flow but entropy. The ordered systems succumb to chaos. This chaos allows certain people to make large amounts of money, just like random alteration in genes might produce a person who has several good qualities.

wow so much text, you guys must be so smart

Thoughts about the libertarian party?

Avoid at all cost?

<#452955229227319306> slow mode has been lowered back to **5 seconds**