Topic: Who or what defines a good economy? (Read 1641 times)

Black centralfarians?

Edit: Dark centralfarians

How do  you name someone that deify central banks in this forum?

Everywhere i go in this forum, people are seen trolling

Yes, this forum has big feet.

I was looking if anyone rely on SANE CURRENCY for a good economy!

BITCOIN IS A SANE CURRENCY, this may drive out fiat currencies just using way and in a natural process( economicly talking ), change the economy ...and people also!!!

see also Why I'm selling with a fixed BTC price


ARE YOU A TROLL?!  YES, YOU ARE
Is Bitcoin created slowly? If you have a BTC, like probably you have, in your hand are 8 decimals, like to say 1.000.000,00 of FIAT currency.
Does we need money to be created and destroied? WHY? Is absurd! What we need is simply to redistribute them. Let me say, that we, and I'm the first one, have to learn about generosity, unselfish, inclusivety and many more values

I can beleave that a post like this can feet this forum.

You are the one to decide how much of your time you want to sell, how much of your money you want to spend, and how much to invest or save. It is the psychical advantage, and if you feel better when you consume in such a way that the environment is preserved, that is up to you. You can of course object to others destroying your environment, but that is more of a rights issue, and not about maximizing wealth.


There is no greater good, that is a fallacy designed to make you a slave. You can not be a slave really, but your masters, and sometimes yourself, can believe it.

As Adam Smith explained, due to the tendency to save, and the fact that capital increases productivity, there is a natural increase in wealth going on in the world. And again, wealth is what you perceive as wealth, nobody can say for you what is valuable. So I don't disagree with you, but I think I expressed it more correctly in accordance with economic terminology.

And wealth and consumption has nothing to do with destroying the nature. All material goods come from nature when you go to the bottom of it, so some use of nature is necessary, but increased wealth can just as well come from the increased productivity of work as services.

If you prefer, you could easily unite goods and services into only services, where you think of every material good as providing a service for you. A house provides shelter, a shoe provides protection for your feet and so on. A better shoe could be produced with work, using the same amount of land factors as the previous, lesser shoe.

You're axioms seem reasonable.  But what if I want to 'consume' lots of time with my friends, clean water and air, and plenty of natural beauty?  Only the economy of nature (earth's economy) can provide clean net clean water and air.  Yes, we have air filters and can distill water, but those processes produce far more pollution than remove.

Are you saying that we have all have different wants and needs, and when things are for the greater good, as in meeting more wants than creating needs, than that is good for the economy?  In that case, slavery would be very good for the economy, so long as not more than 49% of people were enslaved.  And I suppose slavery was very good for lots of people.  But that should make it clear that a good economy is not something any self-interested individual would strive for, as they would strive for their own well being, and not the greater good.  There is also the confounding factor of people not knowing what they actually want, or being confused by advertising and bad advice.  Given these reasons, I will stick with the conclusion of my O.P., that a good or bad economy is not measurable concept and lies in the eye of the beholder.

Reminds me ... some fundamental questions like ...

Scarcity is the fundamental economic assumption of having seemingly unlimited human needs and wants in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

Some axioms:

• We want maximum consumption
• Consumers decides what is value and hence maximum consumption
• Everyone decides for themselves what they want to produce and consume
• No violence

So a good economy is where the capital (the tools and resources for production) is steered towards production of what consumers wants.

And where the fraction of what is produced to go towards capital (the savings rate) is decided by all actors.

If you're looking for specific mathematical models, you could start with the classical book read by many economist, called "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (Published 1776). Personally I think the book is outdated, but nonetheless, it's mathematics are strong and many ideas still hold strong to this day.

If you're looking for a more modern text on the subject you can check out "Theory of Games and Economic Behaviors" (Published 1944). This included, among others, the idea of the Prisoner's Dilemma, which if you have seen that Russell Crowe movie "A Beautiful Mind" they compare the Prisoner's Dilemma to three guys trying to meet 'three ladies' to make their evening more 'fun'. Basically the 'wingman' joke came from this. In the prisoner's dilemma, the party that sacrifices for the good of others is the 'wingman'. In economics that I was taught, it was more visualized as two criminals being interviewed in separate rooms, being told that the other one was going to spill out information regarding the other. The idea is that we assume those working with us are rational human beings who want to better themselves and their partners (other nations of citizens), and the concept of irrationality in this context comes from not knowing if an accomplice in a crime (just for example) will sell their partner out to get a better deal that only suits them, and not their partner. Ultimately, both parties lose the financial gain had they not screwed up, but if they both take a stance in not spilling out information against their partner, both parties will suffer but also retain some of their wealth, and their friendship, which is arguably as important. It all seems based on the idea of rationality. I will admit, using criminals as examples is kind of humorous, but it does give an idea of a scenario in which the process is similar.

Now I hope I never explain that the same way again, hahaha.

I personally think that economic science is still in its youth and is one that is tied and dependent on other studies such as culture, politics, education/knowledge, technology, nutrition, and infrastructure. I am no economist, this is just what I know having taken a very rudimentary class in College that I did not enjoy but apparently paid attention in. Anyways, I hope this helps you.

As for your question, I don't think any one person can define a good economy, I think that unless we have a system capable of monitoring every transaction that occurs at any point on the planet as they occur, and an ability to track resources from beginning to end in a systematic way, then we don't have a full-proof all knowing structure of economic development. Of course, this is extremely more difficult to do in countries lacking computer technology and databases connected to the web, which I believe is still something like 2/3'rd of the planet. I hope this was helpful in your inquiry. I do think Bitcoin could benefit from Google's 'loon' project to give internet by means of balloons travelling wind tunnels in the sky. However, my thoughts are speculation alone.

- MP

A good economy is when everyone who wants a job can have one.
The wages for work is on par with the living expenses of a given area.

The article quoted is a bunch of flim-flam.

FYI here is a good website on statistics:

http://www.shadowstats.com/

First you have to ask "why do we need an economy?"  We are humans and we want to avoid death.  In order to avoid death we need food & shelter at the most fundamental level.  

We are way past the point of an egalitarian society so most people need to produce in order to trade their production for food & shelter.  I'm using "production" broadly to mean anything from goods to services to finance.  What you produce is called "capital".  An economy is just what happens when capital is exchanged between participants

Money is just a concept to make the exchange of capital easier.  Its a type of credit, an IOU.  Historically speaking, money has always existed.  Money existed as credit before metal coins.  But for a while money was backed by precious (rare) metals.  This didn't work too well because the economy expanded too fast due to technological advances along w population growth.  There was was more demand for money than supply of money.  In order to address this issue the world decided to go off the gold standard and used fiat money instead.  Central Banking is the latest iteration of money tech.  Its because the world realized that for stability money needs to be elastic at times and disciplined at other times.  Money needs to be created AND destroyed in order to serve the economy

Bitcoin is not good money because it can be created but slowly and only to a max cap of 21M.  It could be destroyed but once destroyed you can't create more after the max is mined

I wrote this for the comment section of the Economist article that covered bitcoin's deflationary aspect.  I know it has been discussed many times here, but we should probably keep discussing so we can continually educated ourselves and our growing community about this very broad and subtle topic.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/money

The strength of the economy not a measurable concept, is in the eye of the beholder.  Your good economy might be my bad economy.  There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who disagree with the Western Governments conventional view of economic strength and progress.  If bitcoin could drive down over consumption as part of its macro-effects, I see that as a positive.  Others might disagree.  But if you think I should be pressured into a certain type of behavior, such as working 40 hours a week, or ‘investing’ my money, because it benefits your view of what a good economy is, than you are much more aligned with central planning and a lack of personal freedom than with free-market capitalism, where each can seek their own path with minimal interferance.

*put another way*

It really comes down to what your concept of an 'economy' is.  I consider the essence of an 'economy' to be about society enabling people to satisfy their needs and desires.  It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the maximum material output and over consumption that currently drives mainstream western economic thought.  Imagine some future utopia, where only ten hours per week of work is needed for the typical person to fulfill their needs and desires.  Materiel consumption is almost nothing, as goods last a lifetime, and instead of shopping for new gadgets, people derive their happiness from hours of reading, spending time with their friends and children, making music and meditating. Who am I to tell these people they have a bad economy?