Reddit reviews Economix: How and Why Our Economy Works (and Doesn't Work) in Words and Pictures

Keynes balked when he had the chance to denounce capitalism. To make a very long story short, he thought that people could "tame the beast" whereas Hayek believed you could "starve the beast".

Notice what I'm doing here: I'm discussing the two right wing concepts of neocons and neoliberals. So let's explain what both miss.

Hayek, being the key figure of private markets and less government, lived with an idealized free market economy. Since the election of Reagan, we've tried that experiment of eliminating government in everything. What Hayek missed was that power can accumulate in more than one form, threatening individual liberty.

What Hayek missed is the concept of externalities. We tax businesses for societal problems which would be a bad waste of resources. One big example? Oil. We should be taxing it instead of giving it a subsidy. Hayek's main problem is essentially that this is the same work that can be undermined by an Excel error.

Now let's get into Keynes... They managed the economy well because they had IMMENSE pressure in the 30s from three groups: Communists, Socialists, and unions. Keynes was even a former Marxist who felt that Capitalism could be made more germane. Granted, with so much pressure from below, they had to do something, and Keynesians created a LOT of good ideas that helped out the people. But in the 70s, their ideas became quantitative and complex, pushing them to be cheerleaders of the system of capitalism instead of understanding it.

Honestly, I like Paul Krugman but reading some of his stuff is needlessly difficult. He talks about interest rates, investments, and all sorts of minutiae which is great but needlessly complicated. That's his job though... Making the layman understand as if his article is an episode of Frazier.

But let's take Keynesian economics to its extent. Still, it's a neoclassical economic study. What's going to happen in the end?

Well, unless you fix the problems that progressives ignore, you're going to have a failing of political democracy yet again. And what liberals and conservatives fail to understand is essentially one fundamental flaw of capitalism. It's undemocratic. We have shareholders, who appoint managers, who decide what you produce, where you produce, and how you produce. That's how a capitalist business is formed.

But think about what is left out here... You have a situation where someone has power over you and what you do. And if you're fired, you're no longer an effective part of your community. You are an employee, with few rights, little access to your government and even fewer chances to speak out. America is tailored to the employer!

So to me, that's where Keynesians forget or have yet to explore. As a Marxist who went from conservative to libertarian to liberal to Socialist in my life, it just felt that these notions are either ignored or downplayed by most liberals to the detriment of the entire political ideology. I actually enjoy discussions with neoclassical thoughts. I actually like debates. But you have to be honest about the downfalls of schools of thoughts in order to see them strengthened.

What has occurred in Congress is that the liberals are stuck advocating the same policies of the 1930s. The conservatives are stuck with the same failed policies of 1929. Both schools didn't seem to grow from the 1970s when Keynesian economic theory collapse under stagflation, economists were mainly discussing pure theories instead of reality, and most left wing groups were taken away from schools where they weren't able to become more effective in discussing alternative views.

Make no mistake, I don't look to discredit Keynes at all and hope I'm being sincere in showing the criticisms I have with right wing economics. What I hope to do here is to show that the main issues is in how it looks to tame capitalism which means it doesn't solve the problems inherent in capitalism that Marx already discussed: class. Not that class is the most important thing, not that it's ineffective. It's just a fact that class is the most ignored part of any economic theory that none other than left wingers talk about... That distinct separation of employer and employee which can undo any gains as evidenced by how most of the New Deal has essentially been undone.

Source for argument on Keynes

Source for comparison of Marx, Keynes, and Hayek

As a general principle? No, I don’t believe so. It’s not even psychology; it’s game theory and economics. Read a book.

Here, I’ll get you started. Try this on for size and argue with an idea instead of attacking people’s motivations.

I'm a huge fan of Economix and Hypercapitalism and think it's worth sharing with people who are interested in knowing more about economics and capitalism.

I found Economix very helpful as a basic sort of primer. It helps lay out the path of the last few centuries of economic thought, and it does it in the form of a comic book!

Nice post Noamsky!

For anyone interested in explaining capitalism to their kids - Economix - is a great book. http://economixcomix.com. Here's the link on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0810988399/.

This is a great point "the ONLY way anything gets done under capitalism is if a wealthy person stands to make a good amount of money" - however it's exactly what government should be providing - things like schools, hospitals etc.

It may not be the style you are looking for, but I liked Economix (http://www.amazon.com/Economix-Economy-Works-Doesnt-Pictures/dp/0810988399).

The EO reinstating the Mexican Policy is definitely not what I want to see. I don't quite understand what the EO for the federal hiring freeze is trying to accomplish; I suspect it's intended to pave the way for contractors to start fulfilling jobs previously filled by federal employees instead of actually trying to cut down on labor costs in the Fed, particularly as those labor costs seems to amount to a rather insignificant portion of the budget. This sucks, if it's the case.

RE: The TPP, I was pretty swayed by the arguments against put forward in Economix and the concern of business entities being able to pursue litigation against sovereign nations for "inhibiting profits". On the other hand, global trade generally does help ours and other economies, although there is and has been plenty of abuse due to the lack of oversight in how trade is conducted. I am really sympathetic to the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs and its impact on lower and middle classes, but at the same time I think it's an inevitable outcome given the availability of labor globally.

Overall, I am severely distrustful of this administration acting in the best interest of the middle and lower class. Given the trend of growing economic inequity in the last four decades, this is particularly troubling.

http://www.amazon.com/Economix-Economy-Works-Doesnt-Pictures/dp/0810988399/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338994565&sr=8-1

Dude - read this book

I'm a fan of Freakonomics

http://freakonomics.com/

I'm also partial to this book explaining fundamentals of economics:

https://www.amazon.com/Economix-Economy-Works-Doesnt-Pictures/dp/0810988399

Sample of his stuff:
http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/