what's wrong with economics

[Frances Lengel]

The silver platter would be proudly displayed in Cash Converters window by now.

 

[Humberto]

What sort of rotter thinks people are not what is important and market freedom is. Yes people are entitled. Its called civilisation.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The 'problem with economics', imo, is a problem that relates to our basic natures.

We don't actually require all that much in order to survive; but because our instincts evolved during a long time when scarcity was the norm for humanity, it was survival-adaptive for the human species to have a voracious appetite for more of everything, thus ensuring that we would constantly be on the quest, and thus best able to suss out scarce resources.

But in recent times, our logical thinking tool has allowed us to create surplus, and in very recent times, large surpluses. The existence of a surplus has led to a number of problems; principally, the rise of a class of people who control the surplus and who bring about inequality of distribution; and the ability of some people to over-sate their constant appetites.

So, most recent economics have been about the best way to distribute the goodies[the surplus]. Capitalism at its essence, is about the strongest getting the most goodies. Communism/socialism are just mirror philosophies to capitalism in the same way that Satanism is a mirror to Christianity - it claims to be so different, but its deity is one of the Christian pantheon; and its tenets are usually just an antithesis to those of Christianity.

Similarly, communism portrays itself as different because it has a distribution method that is quite different from the capitalist method, ie from each... to each etc.

But both systems are in agreement that the highest good is the production and consumption of more goodies. They just differ about who should get what.

The problem is that unlimited growth is impossible in a finite system: the day must come when either system must say 'sorry - that's it!' It's also arguable that so long as the production and consumption of goodies is considered the highest good, there will be people who try to undercut or shortcut the system in order to get more.


The answer, imo, is to use part of our logical thinking tool, to counteract the survival impulse that used to be beneficial to survival, but which now, arguably, is counterproductive to survival: the constant and voracious appetite for more. If we are to survive, it must be brought under control.

That is also the way to 'beat the bosses', in the first instance. They can't be beaten via unionisation, demand for more wages etc: all that those things speak to is a desire for more wherewithal to get ahold of more goodies - and in the end, the bosses control the production of the goodies. Working within the system is a sign of acquiescence to, and a co - opting by, the system.

The system - these systems - can only be beaten via personal self control, in the form of a rejection of the desire for constantly more and constantly new things. The system can only be beaten when people refuse to purchase the products of the system. And that is achieved by learning to control the desire for constant goodies. Systems predicated on acquisition falter when the populace turns its back on acquisition. Also, by training ourselves to want less, we stand a better chance of not overtaxing the ecosystem to the breaking point.

 

[JimW]

So do you expect everything to be handed to you on a silver platter? You are not entitled to food, shelter etc. for simply existing.

Yes, it's fortunate that our laws still allow you to fill up your wagon and head out west (anywhere beyond the Severn) to stake a claim, raise a cabin and start your life as a rugged free farmer shifting for yourself. Voluntary my arse.

 

[DotCommunist]

it's a subset of that pigheaded phrase ' the world doesn't owe you a living' well actually yes it does, given that the set up is so that I cannot make it on my own I am at least entitled to the opportunity to earn and those who cannot are at least entitled to be looked after. If you want an atomised individualist society where everyone grubs at the earth for thier own selves then go fucking create one and stop polluting normal human relations with with your abhorrent freakishness. And if your gran slips a disc...well do come crying to me and mine. If we can we'll help. Because we aren't sociopaths.

 

[DotCommunist]

The silver platter would be proudly displayed in Cash Converters window by now.

ah crack converters. The true example of the misery of w/c precarity. Goods that were cheap new displayed for 30% less.

I got my Leonard Cohen greatest hits (colombia records) from crack converters. Just on a whim cos I had heard the name. And never has such a chancing of arm proved so rewarding

 

[Frances Lengel]

ah crack converters. The true example of the misery of w/c precarity. Goods that were cheap new displayed for 30% less.

I got my Leonard Cohen greatest hits (colombia records) from crack converters. Just on a whim cos I had heard the name. And never has such a chancing of arm proved so rewarding

Christ, there's a joke in there - I can't be arsed looking for it though - The elements are;
1 A Leonard Cohen Album
2 A Percieved IV Drug Habit
3 A Pawnshop
4 Suicide

I'll let someone else make sense of it

 

[J Ed]

Good thread, economics students seem to come out of their degrees knowing how to defend capitalism and why it is the bestest but without *that* much knowledge of the system they are defending or knowledge of any others. I had a bit of a 'what *are* they teaching you?' moment a few days ago when I had to explain stocks to an economics student who had previously tried to explain to me why privatisation was a good thing!

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is a science called economics. A social science anyway. How is it possible or desirable that there is not?

Economics isn't a science, social or otherwise, in any real sense (apart from anything else, it's become so prescriptive nowadays that there's little room for the sort of interrogation that the likes of Marx or Keynes indulged in). It incorporates some elements of science (mostly mathematical), but otherwise it's just a set of narratives for justifying ruling class manipulation. It's always incorporated such narratives, but they're more to the fore nowadays.

 

[BigTom]

What's right with economics would have produced a shorter thread

Here are some issues I have with economics:

The idea that it is a science, or that there is an objective truth that economics can find. As Butchers and VP have said, economics is an ideology, one that exists to support capitalism and the ruling class.

The blind faith to their two main a priori ideals - the perfectly rational human, and the idea of perfect markets. This is particularly galling as it's often touted by the same people who reckon economics is an objective scientific enterprise, but once faced with empirical evidence that their a priori beliefs are wrong they won't alter their beliefs, instead denying the evidence that is available.

Tied in with this is a complete (wilfull) ignorance of power relationships, as demonstrated by the person on this thread claiming employment relationships are voluntary.

Also tied in with it is the idea that competition works and always leads to a better outcome for individuals, a denial of cartelisation and monopolisation even though these are the most profitable states for companies to exist in.

I particularly hate the idea that people always make rational utility maximising choices and so therefore all voluntary transactions maximise utility for all actors involved and that therefore all we need to do to make the world amazing is to have more and more voluntary transactions. Feeds into liberal ideas of primacy of the individual and fails to take account of structural issues.

Oh yeah, the idea that private sector/public sector are actually separate entities, or that economies can't function if public sector is >50% GDP


Fuck loads that is wrong basically, very little that is right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not all rich people get rich out of thin air. A lot of people have worked hard to get where their are.

Please quantify "a lot".

They have not gotten money solely "from the sweat of others".

True.
Some of them have inherited money that their ancestors accumulated from the sweat of others, or inherited land originally bought with blood.

I think the government has too much of a hand in decision making+business dealings, and because of that certain business groups are allowed immoral decisions in public life.

And yet, outwith state regulation, did certain business groups make decisions based on morality, or on "the profit motive"? The EIC is a shining example of the triumph of profit over morality, but I'm sure I could name many other such triumphs if pressed.

Raising the income tax will have many consequences , e.g:
-Small and medium enterprises, not just rich companies are harmed. They may have to close up shop.

Ah, the usual scare tactics. Oddly, the feared results rarely occur.

-Rich people leave and move to tax havens

Some do, some don't. It's generally no loss when some do depart, as their tax affairs are "managed" so creatively that they avoid paying their due anyway.

-The income tax, in itself, is theft.

No, Income Tax is not theft, it's a politically-mandated and widely socially-accepted (by us little people, anyway) method of fulfilling the state's obligations under the social compact that allows the state to rule.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So do you expect everything to be handed to you on a silver platter? You are not entitled to food, shelter etc. for simply existing.

Like most market fundamentalists, you've entirely missed the thrust of his argument, in order to trot out a banal commonplace of right-wing economics.
Well done!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes I am. I want back what the rich have stolen not just from me, but from everyone else.

The silver platter is superfluous, that could be melted and put to other uses.

My favorite possible use would be to melt it down, then pour the molten silver down a rentier's throat.

 

[8ball]

My favorite possible use would be to melt it down, then pour the molten silver down a rentier's throat.

I'd make a colloid and sell it to Jazzz.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What sort of rotter thinks people are not what is important and market freedom is. Yes people are entitled. Its called civilisation.

And here is the problem that your market fundamentalists cannot grasp - that without a modicum of "civilisation", their markets are meaningless, because no-one will trade in them. "Economic life" will effectively shrink to encompass only local barter and person-to-person labour trade. "Good thing!", says I. "Wah, we can't make a profit!" says the market fundamentalist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd make a colloid and sell it to Jazzz.

Hmmm. I'm not sure that colloidal silver actually contains any silver...

 

[8ball]

Hmmm. I'm not sure that colloidal silver actually contains any silver...

Mine will. I'll charge accordingly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's right with economics would have produced a shorter thread

Here are some issues I have with economics:

The idea that it is a science, or that there is an objective truth that economics can find. As Butchers and VP have said, economics is an ideology, one that exists to support capitalism and the ruling class.

The blind faith to their two main a priori ideals - the perfectly rational human, and the idea of perfect markets. This is particularly galling as it's often touted by the same people who reckon economics is an objective scientific enterprise, but once faced with empirical evidence that their a priori beliefs are wrong they won't alter their beliefs, instead denying the evidence that is available.

Ah yes, the "rational actor"! Also a feature of many "right realist" criminological theories. Oddly, if you read case studies and case files with regard to criminals and their "criminal acts", one usually finds a multiplicity of influencing factors toward committing such acts, and very rarely does one find that "rational choice" has played a part beyond "I'm hungry, I need to eat, I have no money, so I'll steal something". That isn't, of course, rational choice (however loudly the right proclaim that it is), because there's a primary factor indicating that the choice has moved beyond the rational to the necessary.

Tied in with this is a complete (wilfull) ignorance of power relationships, as demonstrated by the person on this thread claiming employment relationships are voluntary.

Well, it wouldn't do to tell the world that "choice" is often "Hobson's Choice" if you haven't accumulated enough capital (monetary and/or social).

Also tied in with it is the idea that competition works and always leads to a better outcome for individuals, a denial of cartelisation and monopolisation even though these are the most profitable states for companies to exist in.

A state which companies assume so naturally (and so profitably) that in the modern era (say from the Industrial Revolution onward, although it existed prior to it, too) companies are fairly shameless about it, and happily pay multi-million dollar/pound/euro fines when they get caught.

I particularly hate the idea that people always make rational utility maximising choices and so therefore all voluntary transactions maximise utility for all actors involved and that therefore all we need to do to make the world amazing is to have more and more voluntary transactions. Feeds into liberal ideas of primacy of the individual and fails to take account of structural issues.

Well, the primacy of the individual and property rights, anyway.

Oh yeah, the idea that private sector/public sector are actually separate entities, or that economies can't function if public sector is >50% GDP


Fuck loads that is wrong basically, very little that is right.

And yet some people somewhere have promoted these myths into an ideology.
I wonder why?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tied in with this is a complete (wilfull) ignorance of power relationships, as demonstrated by the person on this thread claiming employment relationships are voluntary.

Yes, I have found this very striking in economics students/graduates I have come across, who really do all seem to spout the same crap about markets. There is apparently an orthodoxy that you can define 'free market' without reference to ownership and wealth distribution generally, which I find rather extraordinary.

 

[8ball]

Yes, I have found this very striking in economics students/graduates I have come across, who really do all seem to spout the same crap about markets. There is apparently an orthodoxy that you can define 'free market' without reference to ownership and wealth distribution generally, which I find rather extraordinary.

There was a graph - that makes it SCIENCE dammit!!!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There was a graph - that makes it SCIENCE dammit!!!

like this one?

It takes two obviously true things: that 100 % income tax and 0 % income tax will produce zero revenue, and just makes up a line to run between the two. Tony Blair was an adherent of this particular piece of nonsense, claiming that it 'proved' that you can't raise income tax above the arbitrary level of 40 percent.

 

[8ball]

like this one?

Exactly like that one.

 

[butchersapron]

or this one that the working class broke in the 70s:

 

[phildwyer]

Economics was invented in order to provide a cordon sanitaire around avaricious and self-interested behavior.

Human actions that were manifestly avaricious and self-interested were classed as "economic," and thus exempted from traditional moral strictures (provided they obeyed the law) on the manifestly absurd grounds that they are an ineradicable part of human nature.

 

[jusali]

I always hear "competition" makes economic sense........yet when I look around me I mostly see collaboration.........
Competition is for the socially inept

 

[butchersapron]

Competition is for losers.

 

[ska invita]

The idea that it is a science, or that there is an objective truth that economics can find. As Butchers and VP have said, economics is an ideology, one that exists to support capitalism and the ruling class.

not sure thats exactly right, economics isn't an ideology, its an inquiry into money and its use, both real and theoretical. Capitalist ideology has come to dominate the discipline, through institutions in academia and of course with central bankers/ bankers/ journalists etc all singing pretty much from the same ideological hymn sheet .

 

[BigTom]

like this one?

It takes two obviously true things: that 100 % income tax and 0 % income tax will produce zero revenue, and just makes up a line to run between the two. Tony Blair was an adherent of this particular piece of nonsense, claiming that it 'proved' that you can't raise income tax above the arbitrary level of 40 percent.

oh god yeah, don't get me started on the Laffer curve, I wish just once someone would be challenged with a simple question - what does the laffer curve look like for the UK in 2014? Fucking textbook nonsense that doesn't fit with the real world, but of course for economic students theory is also right (unless government gets in the way of course). So often they seem to think that the laffer curve says that reducing taxes will always increase revenue, which it obviously doesn't, but it's always used to argue for reductions, yet no-one ever seems to be able to say what point is the tipping point, where are we on the curve.

not sure thats exactly right, economics isn't an ideology, its an inquiry into money and its use, both real and theoretical. Capitalist ideology has come to dominate the discipline, through institutions in academia and of course with central bankers/ bankers/ journalists etc all singing pretty much from the same ideological hymn sheet .

afaik economics didn't exist as an academic discipline in the early fuedal era universities, it comes into being with some French people whose name I can't remember, begins with Ph I think, and then Smith/Ricardo/Malthus around the 18th/19th century. It's necessarily bound up with capitalism, there's a reason why it's entirely dominated by capitalist ideologies, and why Marx called Capital A Critique Of Political Economy. I think you have to step outside of economics to adopt an anti-capitalist ideology that talks about economic relationships/actions. Probably getting a bit semantic at this point tbh.
In any case, as you say the real world economics both in academia and elsewhere is so entirely capitalist (and not just that, but dominated by the kind of neo-classical nonsense I was talking about in the rest of my post) that even if there is the possibility of anti-capitalist economics ideologies they aren't really relevant.

 

[butchersapron]

not sure thats exactly right, economics isn't an ideology, its an inquiry into money and its use, both real and theoretical. Capitalist ideology has come to dominate the discipline, through institutions in academia and of course with central bankers/ bankers/ journalists etc all singing pretty much from the same ideological hymn sheet .

What makes you think that it's that? Is doesn't actually have anything to do with money really does it?

 

[Idris2002]

BigTom is thinking of the Physiocrats, who held that agriculture is the source of all wealth.

They had a very close connection with the royal court in France, which was looking for reasons to explain the rise of their peer competitor across the 18th century Manche.