centrally planned economies & Adams Smith Philosophy?
152778
moved from large centrally planned economies to self-determined market-oriented ones. Basically they became capitalist.\n\nSmith moved to London in 1776, where he published "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," which examined in detail the consequences of economic freedom. It covered such concepts as the role of self-interest, the division of labor, the function of markets, and the international implications of a laissez-faire economy. "Wealth of Nations" established economics as an autonomous subject and launched the economic doctrine of free enterprise.
1179941
Here is an article by Stan Rubenstein about it....\n\nWHETHER revolutions make men or men make revolutions is as debatable today as it was when Thomas Carlyle stated the case during the period of the French Revolution. But one cannot deny that a revolution usually has some individual closely associated with it. We tend to connect Washington with the American Revolution, Lenin with the Russian Revolution and Castro with the Cuban Revolution. \n\nSun Yat Sen seems to belong to the Chinese Revolution of 1911, for after more than two thousand years of dynastic rule, China, amid the turmoil and chaos of the Manchu dynasty, established its first Republic. And with the emergence of this revolutionary government one man stood out as the leader - Sun Yat Sen. \n\nPrior to 1911 Sun Yat Sen traveled widely, spending some time in Japan and the United States. Influenced by western concepts of industrialization, he carried back to his native land ideas that differed from those normally prevalent in Chinese culture. These ideas affected ensuing events in a significant way. \n\nOf particular importance was his book San Min Chui, or Three Principles of the People. This work is still popular among the Chinese and it cuts across political lines. The proposed reform was embodied in what he called the peoples' principle, and the plans were to be altered or revised as the revolution took various turns. \n\nHis concepts of nationalism and democracy appealed to the dignity and loyalty of the Chinese and strengthened them in their resolve to rid themselves of all foreign powers and gain the respect of the international community. Democracy was envisioned to rest with the wishes of the people as interpreted through their leadership. \n\nThe principle of livelihood, his third important contribution, was Sun's hope of achieving a desirable living standard for the Chinese based on an equalization of land ownership and regulation of capital. When he was asked what the policy of China was he responded, "We propose that the government shall levy a tax proportionate to the price of the land, and if necessary buy back the land according to its price." \n\nAccording to this formula the landowners could set the value, and if the value was excessive the landowner would have to pay high taxes. If the value set was too low the government would buy the property. From this point forward all increases in land value would go to the community and increases in value would help defray the costs of government. \n\nSince Sun's ideas were influenced partially by Henry George and partially by Karl Marx, he advocated that the state should regulate capital and serve as a source of promoting industry. He disagreed with Marx's analysis of class struggle however, and attempted to reconcile parts of both systems. \n\nSun's program was not carried out during his lifetime but it is ironical that the Chinese Communists have been influenced by some of the thoughts concerning the state regulation of capital, and the Nationalist Chinese have incorporated some of his basic views on the equalization of land ownership.
663502
From my point of view, Marx was an excellent analyst of the economy. Marx's interpretations of what was happening in his time are great and based in many previous authors but I think the main influence was David Ricardo. This Marxism may be used to understand today's capitalism. It may be even used to improve today's capitalism (and many socialist parties around the world did it).\n\nThen you have in Marx a political philosopher. He stands that capitalism is unfair. And he and his followers entered the political arena with an agenda that emerges from Marx's philosophy. I should say that the main influence here comes from Rousseau. This Marx and this Marxism is a political party. You may agree or not, you may become a communist and fight for the revolution or not. But from this point of view, revolution is something that has to be made, that will not just happen.\n\nBut finally you have in Marx a prophet. Based on an early positivist vision and some bad reading of Hegel, Marx explanation of the revolution was more a prophecy than a political issue or a scientific theory.\n\nAs a conclusion, I don't believe in Marx's prophecies that the revolution is coming.\n\nI don't subscribe to his political agenda, so I'm not going to fight for the revolution to come.\n\nFinally, though many tendencies in the economy that Marx predicted happened, the capability of capitalism to re-invent itself and re-create scarcity makes me think that capitalism will not end soon and after it ends nothing tells me that what may replace it is what Marx predicted.
1353
It's here, whether we like it or not!!\n\nRead Friedman's The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century.\n\nIt's about outsourcing.\n\nWhat Friedman means by "flat" is "connected": the lowering of trade and political barriers and the exponential technical advances of the digital revolution have made it possible to do business, or almost anything else, instantaneously with billions of other people across the planet.\n\nGlobalization 3.0, as he calls it, is driven by individuals: desktop freelancers and innovative startups all over the world (but especially in India and China) who can compete--and win--not just for low-wage manufacturing and information labor but, increasingly, for the highest-end research and design work as well.\n\nVery interesting book...
1152496
Cut the socialist PC crap.  From the horses mouth.\n\n"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."\n\nRoger Baldwin \nFounder of the ACLU
484426
Chief Allies: American Consumers, Iran\nArchenemies: Japan/India\n$50 billion per year of foreign investment, a labor force that survives on $70 a month, has enjoyed a 9% GDP growth for 25 years....all under state controlled pseudo-capitalism, has a spiking fuel addiction, and just inked a $70 billion three-decade natural gas deal with Iran\n\nEconomy: China has an economy so robust that to keep the value of its “Yuan” in check, the People’s Bank of China has been propping up our currency by accumulating American dollars, bonds, and treasuries—about $533 billion at last count.  By keeping the currency undervalued, the Chinese are telling the world, “We can provide you with low-cost goods,” Communism may be nearly dead in all but the name in China, but it survives in the form of one last taboo: the fact that the right of an individual to won agricultural land is tenuous (weak) at best.\n\nProblem: China needs to address the fact that its farmers have missed out on the double-digit growh that has transformed urban China and turned its richest cities into some of the most dynamic in Asia.\n\nProblem: If China decided to drop/dump its dollar reserve on the world currency market, interest rates here could skyrocket, severely damaging our stock and housing markets.  However, that probably won’t happen because China needs American prosperity to continue its growth, and Americans with extra dollars love Chinese imports.  It keeps the Chinese economic juggernaut rolling.
75143
idea 1: inflation has an "invisible hand" to control it...ie when inflation devalues the american dollar to a certain point; people spend substatially less money on luxuries, and luxury item companies react and make their product more affordable...which is reflected in a sort of ratio of cost between necessities and luxuries and whatever falls inbetween...  now idea 2: we, as a nation, expect unemployment.  we have a certain, budgeted amount of money set aside to compensate for that.  Now lets assume two things...1 - that idea 1 is true and that idea 2 is true.  2 - that in the instance that this original question is posed, neither inflation nor unemployment is so out of control that it is causing "economic anarchy"  Assuming all of this... it would make it more important to control inflation because it is not prepared for in the same way that unemployment is...plus (as a side note, and you thought i was done...) inflation causes each dollar to be worth less money...therefore, theorhetically, people are recieving smaller paychecks...and it leads some to get secondary (or even tertiary) jobs or to work additional hours, which begins to take up hours that are availible from employers...and when companies move less product, they have less hours of work to provide to those that work for them....think about it...
278696
Technically, none of these are correct.  In 1947, George Kennan, who was responsible for setting up the US Embassy in Russia published an article in Foreign Affairs under the penname "X" calling on the US to prevent expansion of communism through the policy of 'containment'. It was based upon the dual plan of attempting to thwart the efforts of Soviet Russia of expanding into Asia and other parts of Europe and by doing so, economic system would collapse (this only took 30 years and a HUGE amount of deficit spending on OUR part). \n  \nTherefore, containment Policy would deal with USSR from a two-pronged approach (economic and militarily) Economically, the Marshall Plan was the large part of it the aid package delivered to France, Italy, Germany, etc. to rebuild after the war....secondly, NATO was created.  So I choose E....none of the above.
335124
Milton Friedman has made two particularly fundamental contributions to the economic policy debate. They are his work on the "Quantity Theory of Money" and the expectations augmented "Phillips Curve."\n\nFor more information checkout the link below.
721213
Dai TANK payya,\n\nWhat is the community going to do with the money saved? Are they going to invest ( because they might have saved it with some intension to invest it, otherwise why should they save at all) directly. Will the government (if assumed to be present) borrow the funds saved by the community. If foreign trade is incorporated into the story, decline in prices could induce exports and increase income (to producers) or atleast eliminate losses as was given in the question.\n\nWhy did Keynes not the full question( or did i not understand fully)?
804428
Adam Smith in his The Wealth of Nations. Smith devised a set of concepts that remain strongly associated with capitalism today.\n\nKarl Marx considered capitalism to be an historically specific mode of production. The capitalist stage of development represented the most advanced form of social organization to date.
800427
Welcome to the world of political philosophy vs political propoganda.  Okay a couple of things socialism means that the government has more control over business.  MAking sure there is money for healthcare, welfare, education, etc.  There are many socailistic countries in Europe that are democratic and doing fine.  Communism is further left.  Communism is an economic model and not a political one.  You could have a democratic communism.  What has happenned is a lot of solcialistic dictatorships.  There is yet to be a true communist country.  Unfortunately human greed always ruins communism as it will do with capitalism (according to marx) and there is examples of it starting to happen now (outsourcing jobs for penny wages).  Captilism will expand until it cannot expand any further and then collapse upon itself (basically once the rich have starved the poor whats left?).  It is a very confusing issue.   Anarchy is a political model and I would say is the opposite of socialism...which is no governemnt at all.  However I have been an anarchist for awhile, not because of punk, but because I have no faith in the politcal process today.  Too much business influence and lobbyists to really help most individuals.  But the pistols do rock.
1014181
Adam Smith --> Tje Wealth of Nations = foundation to modern economics\n\nThomas Malthus --> essays about population\n\nDavid Ricardo --> The Principle of Political Economics and Taxation and the advantages of international trade\n\nJohn Stuart Mill -->Principles of Political Economics\n\nKarl Marx --> The Communist Manifesto and the Critique of Political Economics\n\nLeon Walras --> Elements of Pure Economics\n\nCarl Menger --> Principles of Economics = 'marginal revolution"\n\nAlfred Marshall --> ceteris paribus\n\nThorstein Veblen --> The Theory of the Leisure Class + conspicious consumption\n\nVilfredo Pareto --> foundations of modern welfare economics\n\nJoseph Schumpeter --> creative destruction\n\nJohn Maynard Keynes --> The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money\n\nEdward Chamberlin --> The Theory of Monopolistic Competition and The Economics of Imperfect Competition\n\nFriedrich August Von Hayek --> business cycles+monetary disturbances
906881
The problem here is what is meant by the word 'communism'. What used to obtain in the Soviet Union had little resemblance to anything that was reflected on or seen as desirable by Marx or Engels.\n\nThis business about 'good in theory but bad in practice' is hog-wash inasmuch as the practice in Eastern Europe had little to do with the theory, if by the latter is meant the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx himself- by far the more interesting writer of the two- did not produce blue-prints of post-revolutionary society, but was indeed very clear about the evils of capitalism. These are present still, and are clearly in evidence. We live in a grossly exploitative and unequal world economy.\n\nHere it would be better to question capitalism, rather than communism!
486816
Doug North's "Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance" will be essential to understanding where the field has gone recently.  It's much more concrete than Stiglitz' "Globalization", which, while interesting, carries a lot of opinionizing among the little bit of theory.  North is considered the premier authority on institutions in the academic world today.  I've also attached a reading list from one of the recent events in the field, and it's pretty comprehensive.\n\nThose should keep you busy for a while.  :)
197452
Just spreading the ideas of Karl Marx. Not sure what the speech was about but Stalin was not a political thinker, just a drunk with an army.\n\nI assume the speech was about the Communist take over of the US. Marx wrote that a revolution would one day replace Capitalism and its economic inequality with a system of total economic equality.
469170
I think the biggest thing we learned is that centrally planned economies just don't work. You can't run an entire country like a dictatorship, where the production and reward for every citizen is determined by the leadership.\n\nIt is somewhat curious that this is so, because this is basically how every company is run, but every attempt to run an entire nation like this has ended in ruin. People really are only willing to respond to what is basically selfish motivations: the desire to better either themselves or their family. When you try to motivate them by telling them that what they are doing is for the best of the country as a whole and try to regulate their lives, they resist by not giving their best effort, or in many cases, no real effort at all. This causes economic ruin.\n\nPeople are better when they have the freedom to decide for themselves what the most productive use of their time and passion is.