Understanding various Economic Theories as Ideological Compositional Games & their Emergent Systems

[Dante Monson]

I replied this on a forum: 

Based on this approach, how would you define the ideology of each system and theory of economics? :  Economics is about understanding games as systems, including iterative emergent compositional games. It is ideological. The question is: what do you want to enable? Keynesian approaches attempt to reduce poverty. The Austrian School of Economics in its ideology is hyper individualistic and favours extreme inequality and, ultimately poverty for the masses and extreme wealth for a few. There are also many more "games" suggested. I would suggest looking into Georgist emergent games and how they approach hoarding within such compositional emergent games.

AI:

Your description presents a specific, critical view of various economic systems. Let's break down the ideologies of each system and theory you mentioned based on your framing.

Keynesianism Based on your view, the ideology of Keynesian economics is to reduce poverty and achieve social welfare through government intervention. It sees the market as a system that, left to its own devices, can fail to provide full employment and stability. Therefore, the government has a crucial role to play in managing the "game" through fiscal and monetary policies, such as public spending on infrastructure and controlling interest rates, to stimulate demand and correct market failures. The ultimate goal is to create a more stable and equitable society by ensuring a minimum standard of living and reducing the severity of economic downturns.

The Austrian School of Economics Your definition characterizes the ideology of the Austrian School as hyper-individualistic and enabling extreme wealth concentration and poverty. This perspective suggests that the Austrian model is an "enabling game" for a small number of people to accumulate vast wealth at the expense of the majority. The ideology, in this view, sees the market as a system where the most cunning or fortunate individuals are rewarded, and this outcome is not only acceptable but desirable. It prioritizes individual liberty and property rights above all else, even if the "game" results in what you describe as "extreme inequality and, ultimately poverty for the masses."

Georgism You describe Georgism as an "emergent game" that approaches "hoarding." The ideology of Georgism, in this framing, is to prevent the concentration of wealth and poverty by addressing the issue of land rent. Georgists believe that the value of land is created by the community and should therefore belong to the community. The "game" is structured to disincentivize land speculation and hoarding, which they see as a primary cause of inequality. By implementing a single tax on the unimproved value of land, Georgism aims to create a more equitable system where wealth is earned through labor and capital investment, rather than through the passive ownership of land. The ideology seeks to create an economic system that is both individualistic and egalitarian, where the benefits of a growing society are shared by all.

...

Expanding on your "games as systems" framework, here is an exploration of the ideologies of several other major economic doctrines. Each "game" is defined by what it seeks to enable or prioritize.

Neoclassical Economics

The ideology of Neoclassical economics is to achieve efficiency and equilibrium through rational, self-interested behavior. This "game" assumes that individuals are "rational agents" who seek to maximize their personal utility, and firms strive to maximize profits. The ideal outcome is a state of market equilibrium where supply and demand are perfectly balanced, leading to the most efficient allocation of resources. The ideology is to let the "players"—individuals and firms—freely interact in the market, believing their rational choices will lead to the best possible collective outcome. Any problems that arise are often framed as "market failures" which may require minimal, targeted intervention.

Monetarism

The ideology of Monetarism is to ensure economic stability and control inflation by managing the money supply. This "game" sees the amount of money in circulation as the primary determinant of economic health. In this view, excessive government spending and expansion of the money supply are the main causes of inflation and economic instability. The goal is to set a "game rule" where the money supply grows at a steady, predictable rate to align with economic growth, thereby keeping prices stable. It's a game of rules, not of discretion, and it often views significant government intervention as a source of market distortion.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

The ideology of MMT is to achieve full employment and social goals by utilizing the power of a sovereign currency. This is a completely different "game" from both the Austrian and Monetarist schools. MMT proponents believe that a government that issues its own currency cannot "run out of money." The "game rule" is that the government is only constrained by the availability of real resources (labor, materials, etc.), not by taxes or debt. The ideology is to enable the government to be a powerful player that can spend freely to achieve social outcomes like full employment, with the only real check being inflation. If inflation becomes a problem, the government can use taxes to reduce private spending and cool down the economy.

Institutional Economics

The ideology of Institutional economics is to understand how social, political, and cultural institutions shape economic outcomes. This "game" rejects the idea of a simple market model and sees the economy as a complex system of intertwined institutions—laws, habits, customs, norms, and organizations. The focus is on how these "rules of the game" evolve and influence individual behavior, which is often not perfectly rational. The ideology is not to enable a specific outcome, but to understand the systemic origins of inequality, power, and instability by studying how these institutions change over time. It's about recognizing that the "game" isn't a simple playing field but a dynamic, ever-changing landscape of rules and power structures.

Behavioral Economics

The ideology of Behavioral economics is to improve economic outcomes by understanding and leveraging human irrationality. This "game" challenges the core assumption of rational self-interest found in Neoclassical economics. It incorporates insights from psychology to show that humans often rely on cognitive biases and emotional shortcuts, leading them to make "irrational" decisions. The ideology is to create better "game designs" or policies that account for these human foibles. For example, by using "nudges"—subtle changes in the way choices are presented—policymakers can gently guide people toward more beneficial decisions, such as saving for retirement or eating healthier, without resorting to mandates.

Ecological Economics

The ideology of Ecological economics is to prioritize sustainability and intergenerational equity by embedding the economy within the natural environment. This "game" sees the economy not as a closed, self-contained system but as a subsystem of the Earth's finite ecosystem. The ultimate goal is to enable a sustainable human society. It rejects the idea that economic growth can continue indefinitely and introduces the "game rule" of respecting planetary boundaries. It places a high value on natural capital and intergenerational justice, arguing that the economic "game" must be played in a way that doesn't deplete the resources or pollute the environment that future generations will need to survive.