Stoic Guardian wrote:Could you teach me Pavlonian?
I find myself largely ignorant of economics.
Stoic Guardian wrote:Tell me. are there correct and Incorrect economic systems.
I hear much criticism and praise about particular economic policies without real explanation of what there benefits and/or detriments are.
Stoic Guardian wrote:In your opinion, What would be the most stable economic policy that would generate enough income too support the state while also having reserves of wealth? Should an unforseen crises or need arise for which that surplus wealth is needed.
PavlovianModel146 wrote:Stoic Guardian wrote:In your opinion, What would be the most stable economic policy that would generate enough income too support the state while also having reserves of wealth? Should an unforseen crises or need arise for which that surplus wealth is needed.
Income-limited semi-Capitalistic (small business allowed) version of Socialism with Universal Health Care, no malpractice suits allowed for excusable mistakes, where the monetary system is based strictly on the Gold Standard.
But...perhaps you should start a thread in Social Sciences if we are to continue in this vein.
Fixed Cross wrote:Also one for economics would be great. These two fields are becoming increasingly interesting for philosophy, because the establishment of collective morals is falling away in the west and the axioms of law and economics are being compromised. In short there's work to do and for that I think we need a more specific ream than social sciences.
Of neither economics nor law I have much knowledge, but I have ideas and I have to test them to people who are knowledgeable, who have degrees in it, who are professionals... maybe we could draw interesting lawyers and economists to this place... It would not be a bad thing to have such people close to the metaphysical and aesthetic philosophy that is going on here. If any, it be these two domains that may shed some light on what is often referred to as conspiracy. The intricacies of power.
I have read a bit of Montesquieu, and I found him to be extremely lucid, a sort of practical Spinoza. This practicality makes him smarter than Spinoza, a greater power at least. I would imagine that there are also economical thinkers of such caliber,
We could discuss such things in some of the other fora philosophy, and as mentioned social sciences, but philosophy is too general, as it necessarily deals also with the non-practical, it is able to operate prior to such judgment.
This suggestion is in part inspired by a couple of recent threads moving toward a greater measure of philosophical control of legislation (economical and otherwise) and reformation of the penal system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users