Is the economy supposed to be a political tools?

[john_cm]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

[Upgrade00]

To the best of my knowledge the federal government does not draw up fiscal policies, they rather approve them when a bill is passed, the central bank of a Nation is responsible for making economic policies which they think would benefit the nation.

You should also note that the sector that makes the policies is different from where actual bills are printed. The idea of 'printing money out of thin air' should not be taken literally as this rarely happens. What the central banks does is they put measures in place to counter the effect of an economic issue;
During a recession, an expansive monetary policy would be passed and this would help to stimulate the economy and increase the cash flow without printing more actual bank notes. This can be done by;
• Making cheaper credits available for banks. This would increase the amounts local banks can borrow from the federal reserves, the bank in turn would make loans readily available for the populace at cheaper interest rates. This is done to stimulate SMEs by injecting more money into the market.
• They can also engage in quantitative easing: were the central banks would buy securities and bonds from member banks, and provide them with credits in those amounts, this increases the liquidity in Banks and increases the flow of money. This was done by the Federal reserve in America during the 2008 financial crisis

These measures are rarely taken proactively and are usually implemented after a recession has already hit, hence the outcomes are not usually very impressive, they are used to set an economy on the path to recovery. It could take several years after it's implementation for the economy to begin to expand.

[Ucy]

Very qualified people(really qualified in their fields) who have the fear of our true CREATOR and detest wrong/immorality are supposed to be in governments, not just in the economic sector. You can't compromise on this else there will be problems.
I feel strongly that this issue of wrong people in the government can be solve with well decentralized system built on the right Blockchain principles and rules.
I nolonger bother myself with the old order, because the normal people who should be standing together to discourage it are busy fighting themselves... They are obviously under heavy bondage.
I think you can make things right with the right decentralized tech and rules/laws.

[BIT-BENDER]

This will be in Corrupt nation where the leaders are unpatriotic in there service to the people that put them in the position they are in. When a corrupt leader is installed the overseeing power of a nation, everything can go bad, in Africa we can figure out some leaders who put in people into critical/important areas -economy,health,education,security- of the nation based on sentiments and not whose profile fits in. Some government leaders -in a corrupt government- take no notice of the economical implications before they sign off decision some of this -like collecting loans unwisely- taking the nation into Dept,

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

Some of this can be more than personal gains. Just Incase you did not know -happens in my country- a candidate before becoming elected can be backed/part of a group who sponsors his election campaign/aspirations if such person wins decision can be made with some influence from those groups, it can also be political parties influence politics now becomes a game.

Heads -selected by profile and qualifications- of sectors such as
+ Economy
+ Revenue
+ Health
+ Security
+ Finance and more.
Should make independent-not forced on them- decision in the interest of the nation as they were sworn in to do and the government should trust their expertise

[so98nn]

Case Scenario - 1

If you give way authority of most vital treasure to non-governing body then how do you think government will give us protection from worst calamities, or downtime of country.

The Economist will always have attitude to save the countries economy and thus may not give free hand to release reserve funds for common man.

Case Scenario - 2

In the developing countries where corruption by political bodies are done 24*7 do you think they will even give slightest angle to this idea. I guess no. Many developing countries has this scene and black money goes into pockets of politicians. They can go rogue to save their "hard earn black money", may hesitate to release these in emergency situations or may have few percent of contribution towards countries development.

Sadly both seems to be worst depending on which type of country are we talking about.

[blockman]

I'm not an expert economically but what you have just said is true. Even people who are not good in economics will understand that the continuous printing will have inflict the future.
But for some people that have completely zero knowledge about economics, they wouldn't care about this matter. Although, they will see the infliction when most credits start to increase in rates and also the adjustment of taxes.

[Baofeng]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

I understand your point, we always know that printing more money will bring inflation. However, with the current situation wherein we are under the pandemic, countries are not operating as normal, the law of supply and demand are skewed.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

Sadly, this is true, not looking at the long run and it seems that the problem lies on the sitting government. If the government knows how to run the country to get out of recession and increase productivity then it will be very beneficial specially giving its people more purchasing power.

[nelson4lov]

about economics, they wouldn't care about this matter. Although, they will see the infliction when most credits start to increase in rates and also the adjustment of taxes.

It's not like they don't care about the matter. The truth is, against the government, they can only very little by voicing out their concerns which doesn't go far by the way. Government will fo whatever they want.

~Snipped

Case Scenario - 2
Many developing countries has this scene and black money goes into pockets of politicians. They can go rogue to save their "hard earn black money", may hesitate to release these in emergency situations or may have few percent of contribution towards countries development.

This is the scenario that occurs majority of the time. The government have always influenced economic policies especially for their own selfish gain. People might argue that economists makes the fiscal policies of any nation but I know for a fact that isn't all there is. These economists will only do the bidding of government if need be. They just keep printing more bills till they reach peak points and then try mitigating it. Rinse and repeat.

[fiulpro]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

See , as long as it can be used by the politicians to exploit the people and policies , everything is a tool for the politicians. Never trust them for good.

See problem is , at this time they have to print money or generate jobs and take care of salaries of people. Unfortunately printing money is the easy way out , plus I have not seen much politicians with an educated background where they did serve the country and it's people for good. Most of the times they are just faces of the party they are working with.

Plus printing money is not as easy as we might think , The Fed decides how much money is supposed to be printed , there are 7 members in the Federal Reserve and therefore this whole notion has to be put forth and is considered equally from all directions , they are well aware of the outcome it might bring .

More or so : It's needed at this time because we cannot expect them to run governance during a pandemic + various protests all around the globe . As long as they are able to help their people through this time it should be enough.

[el kaka22]

Economy is not really an important political tool because all politicians use it, when you use something by everyone that means it is not a tool anymore and it is a must. Let's look at USA for example, there is really nothing in economy that is not divided, everything regarding money is divided between two parties and now you see that it is not a tool anymore but a must.

If you want tools you have to figure out how to use something that the other side is not using at all, for example for Democrats it is the green new deal because they are the party that cares about the climate and the global warming danger, republicans do not care about it, or look at ones who are looking for free universal healthcare, those are stuff you can call tools because other party do not use it, same goes for gun rights for republicans for example.

[Barnabe]

If you look at central banks and their policies, they are supposed to be independent and their decisions should be disconnected from politics. This was made for a simple reason, politics can try to take advantage of these policies to get advantages which will destabilize the economy in the long term. In this frame, the government can only make decisions regarding the management and allocation of resources it already owns.

[blockman]

It's not like they don't care about the matter. The truth is, against the government, they can only very little by voicing out their concerns which doesn't go far by the way. Government will fo whatever they want.

And that leads them to don't care at all. Their little voice won't be heard by the top rank officials or even their normal complains as a citizen.
With talks like this regarding economics, they wouldn't care because for those small complains that they have and still no action, that doesn't matter anymore to them if the economies good or not.

[South Park]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

This is easy to explain, for politicians everything is a tool that they can use for potential gain and if that means destroying the economy so be it, there are very few politicians that actually care about the people they are governing, they care about themselves and nothing more, and while an economic crisis is bad for the people it is good for them as it gives them a chance to pass even more exploitative laws, this is why we need to separate the currency from the government and bitcoin is the first real challenger to appear in hundreds of years to the current model.

[Barnabe]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

This is easy to explain, for politicians everything is a tool that they can use for potential gain and if that means destroying the economy so be it, there are very few politicians that actually care about the people they are governing, they care about themselves and nothing more, and while an economic crisis is bad for the people it is good for them as it gives them a chance to pass even more exploitative laws, this is why we need to separate the currency from the government and bitcoin is the first real challenger to appear in hundreds of years to the current model.

I don't think they don't benefit directly from passing abusive law, but these last few years we have seen cases in which politicians literally sold their votes for a few thousands. If we could put a number on the damage some of them have done for a handful of dollars for their campaign, the public opinion would be outraged and push them out in an instant.

[john_cm]

To the best of my knowledge the federal government does not draw up fiscal policies, they rather approve them when a bill is passed, the central bank of a Nation is responsible for making economic policies which they think would benefit the nation.

You should also note that the sector that makes the policies is different from where actual bills are printed. The idea of 'printing money out of thin air' should not be taken literally as this rarely happens. What the central banks does is they put measures in place to counter the effect of an economic issue;
During a recession, an expansive monetary policy would be passed and this would help to stimulate the economy and increase the cash flow without printing more actual bank notes. This can be done by;
• Making cheaper credits available for banks. This would increase the amounts local banks can borrow from the federal reserves, the bank in turn would make loans readily available for the populace at cheaper interest rates. This is done to stimulate SMEs by injecting more money into the market.
• They can also engage in quantitative easing: were the central banks would buy securities and bonds from member banks, and provide them with credits in those amounts, this increases the liquidity in Banks and increases the flow of money. This was done by the Federal reserve in America during the 2008 financial crisis

These measures are rarely taken proactively and are usually implemented after a recession has already hit, hence the outcomes are not usually very impressive, they are used to set an economy on the path to recovery. It could take several years after it's implementation for the economy to begin to expand.

I guess you have a decent economic background which is great. I also understand that the body making policies and those printing the bills are independent at least on paper. But I strongly feel that behind the scene of what we don't see, there are a lot of interconnected powers playing out, of which the government is always the mastermind.

[l3pox]

Nobody is in control
but this thread reminds me of a lecture Andreas did a couple years back
Money as a system of control

have you watched it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyK4P7ZdOK8

30 of September of 2017.

[Findingnemo]

Most of the political leaders look for their own benefits on every activity in their government that is why they are concentrating on shirt term goals and forget about long term and also their ruling period is limited so why they want to do for long term.

If a government wants to make their economy strong they have to help the people to make money which will automatically make enough earning to thr government which won't bring any inflation as well.

[adzino]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

You said it your self, printing money is going to affect the economy badly in the long run. But the government is thinking about the short run. They know that bad affects that is going to take place, but to win peoples support they need show that they are fixing the economy. Thus, they start taking those stupid decisions. So, I guess they use economy as a political tool which they never should. But, yeah they are corrupted af and doesn't care about anything as long as they hold the power.

[rnsribeiro]

Very qualified people(really qualified in their fields) who have the fear of our true CREATOR and detest wrong/immorality are supposed to be in governments, not just in the economic sector. You can't compromise on this else there will be problems.
I feel strongly that this issue of wrong people in the government can be solve with well decentralized system built on the right Blockchain principles and rules.
I nolonger bother myself with the old order, because the normal people who should be standing together to discourage it are busy fighting themselves... They are obviously under heavy bondage.
I think you can make things right with the right decentralized tech and rules/laws.

You are right partially.
The last sentence is quite questionable tho.
World changes the fastest when people's mind changes, not when you change the law - that is the main issue.
People all over the world should understand why do they need those changes and start to will a change

[abhiseshakana]

I still find it hard to wrap my head over the fact that most economist analyst is aware that continuous printing of money is deterrent to the economy and quality of life in the long-run, but still, the government keeps issuing endless bills. It's not my desire to politicize my views but ideally, economists should run most of the economic policies but it seems the economist is only a remote control tool used by the government to achieve political interest.

It seems the world now runs policies for immediate gains while trashing policies that bring future gains. Maybe I am having a distorted view, but looking at most government policies around the world, even a non-economist can tell that this will be disastrous in the future.

There is nothing wrong with printing money with or without collateral. As long as the use of printed money is for the productive sector as well as real projects as collateral. Not for import activities or paying for coupons or debt. Japan succeeded in printing money as well as China, the two countries rapid development and growth. Print money guaranteed by debt securities is a way to withdraw cash (dollars) directly to the state treasury. But printing a new style of money can be with a sovereign wealth fund or project-based without having to issue bonds. China prints renminbi to attract dollars into China.

Economic programs are more often colored politicized so that they are not really formulated carefully. Economic programs are more political in nature only to boost the image of the authorities than for programs that truly empower the people's economy. The politicization of the program creates wealth and artificial growth. Politicization has made the economic program lose its substance, become more wasteful, ineffective, and even ironically is an increasingly heavy budget burden because the foundation is foreign debt or imports. The majority of economic policies are only reactionary and do not touch the problem substantially. Not to mention the government opposition who want a situation that is always not conducive.

The most important of a leader and government official is a strong character and dare to challenge the flow. Because an idealist when he is in the office is usually carried away by the oligarchs and plutocrats in power so that his idealism is lost by the flow of the system that has been created and running.