ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Except that they're "too little, too late" in most cases, and are massively lobbied against in most states that impose them.
what's wrong with economics
- Thread starter DotCommunist
- Start date
Except that they're "too little, too late" in most cases, and are massively lobbied against in most states that impose them.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To all intents and purposes, for at least the last century and a half, capitalism is economics, and economics is capitalism, whatever the design of your model.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Mathematics, for example.
Utter fucking rubbish.
ska invita
back on the other side
im keeping on with this because if everyone disagrees with me then im likely wrong and im prepared to change my mind here, but nothing thats been said has convinced me otherwise, so im ploughing on...
"for all intents and purposes" is another thing completely from whats been argued so far - obviously capitalism is the dominant system, but even then for example what about a soviet state-planned economy? The people who do the sums on this are economists and much of the theorising and mathematics is economics, shirley? Yes it falls within a global capitalist system, but state capitalism and its variants is still a variant. Capitalism isnt a monolith either btw obvs.
I don't see what is gained by the conceptual reduction of economics to capitalism -in fact to do so is a problem. Alternative ways of managing production and exchange are at the heart of any revolutionary model and grappling with these economic issues should be included in all economic debate
isvicthere?
a.k.a. floppybollocks
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.
Great post, Tom, making it unnecessary to add my own view. Just one thing to add: "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" is a good popular book about what you (and most on this thread) are saying.
Last edited:
tbtommyb
Well-Known Member
A few years ago a friend showed me a pair of graphs he'd been shown (in an economics lecture, incidentally). The first was from the WSJ plotting tax rate against tax take for a few western countries. They had put a nice laffer curve through it showing that the peak tax rate was about 40%. On the second graph the lecturer had taken the WSJ's data points and calculated his own trend line. That showed a positive correlation between tax rate and tax take (albeit weak).
I think the guardian article a few pages back highlighted an important point when it quoted students saying that their economics courses were too focused on prepping for city jobs. Many people studying economics now have little interest in actually investigating economic set ups, but are simply trying to get enough of an understanding so that they can blag their way through an interview for a bank
I agree - good post, BigTom
A lot of what I'd have said has already been covered so I won't go into detail, but it is worth emphasising that it's a fantasy to suppose - as all too many economists do - that you can study 'the economy' in isolation, and from there spring a lot of the main problems with economics as a whole.
Economics over the last few decades has reinvented itself as a rather abstruse branch of higher maths, constructing ever more complex equations that bear less and less relation to reality, and are all concerned with fining down a series of assumptions that a discipline worth its salt (and its practitioners' salaries) would be questioning. Someone mentioned human motivation, which is a case in point: neoclassical economics assumes a completely unrealistic degree of foresight and rationality, but is this ever really questioned? Not really. Someone else mentioned the Great Depression. Much as economists talk about explaining it as the holy grail of economics, all too many people are virtually unaware of it, or other key historical events: theories are assumed to be timeless truths, not constructs that should be tested against (and ideally developed from) historical evidence. And so on. The point is, economics has become far too specialised for its own good, and a lot of it is explaining more and more about less and less. I've also seen it argued that a lot oft he higher maths has very ltitle to do with understanding anything, and a whole lot to do with a) giving the subject an air of scientific rigour that it obviously doesn't deserve, and b) protecting its core assumptions from challenge. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of truth in that.
Tbh I don't have a problem with the concept of 'economics' per se, although I do think the disclipline as it exists now is disastrously misconceived. It's not necessarily about justifying existing power relationships (although all too often it is), and there are plenty of people out there within the discipline who aren't happy about its current state and have gone into print railing against it. Steve Keen, Ha-Joon Chang and John Quiggin are three semi-mainstream examples who spring to mind immediately. Problem is, since the rise of neo-liberalism, 'non-orthodox' economists have been sidelined. IMO groups like the Post-Crash Economics Society are an encouraging sign that that might be starting to change.
A lot of what I'd have said has already been covered so I won't go into detail, but it is worth emphasising that it's a fantasy to suppose - as all too many economists do - that you can study 'the economy' in isolation, and from there spring a lot of the main problems with economics as a whole.
Economics over the last few decades has reinvented itself as a rather abstruse branch of higher maths, constructing ever more complex equations that bear less and less relation to reality, and are all concerned with fining down a series of assumptions that a discipline worth its salt (and its practitioners' salaries) would be questioning. Someone mentioned human motivation, which is a case in point: neoclassical economics assumes a completely unrealistic degree of foresight and rationality, but is this ever really questioned? Not really. Someone else mentioned the Great Depression. Much as economists talk about explaining it as the holy grail of economics, all too many people are virtually unaware of it, or other key historical events: theories are assumed to be timeless truths, not constructs that should be tested against (and ideally developed from) historical evidence. And so on. The point is, economics has become far too specialised for its own good, and a lot of it is explaining more and more about less and less. I've also seen it argued that a lot oft he higher maths has very ltitle to do with understanding anything, and a whole lot to do with a) giving the subject an air of scientific rigour that it obviously doesn't deserve, and b) protecting its core assumptions from challenge. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of truth in that.
Tbh I don't have a problem with the concept of 'economics' per se, although I do think the disclipline as it exists now is disastrously misconceived. It's not necessarily about justifying existing power relationships (although all too often it is), and there are plenty of people out there within the discipline who aren't happy about its current state and have gone into print railing against it. Steve Keen, Ha-Joon Chang and John Quiggin are three semi-mainstream examples who spring to mind immediately. Problem is, since the rise of neo-liberalism, 'non-orthodox' economists have been sidelined. IMO groups like the Post-Crash Economics Society are an encouraging sign that that might be starting to change.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
i like eating poo
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Yes, but what's the marginal utility there?
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Never leave your laptop on and logged into urban when your 11 year old niece is round
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Never leave your laptop on and logged into urban when your 11 year old niece is round
She could have at least done in the appropriate lib-dem thread. That said, maybe she was commenting on the way that some circularly define poo/economics as food/science.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
A sad commentary on the political consciousness of the younger generation.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Post of the thread.
I remember hearing of the Treasury Model of the UK economy several times as I grew up. I imagined that is was a mathematical or algebraic formula. Only later did I find out that it was an actual model that worked by having water flow through it and was called MONIAC. They caused water to flow through different parts of it to work out what would happen to the real economy if money was directed in different ways.
gamerunknown
Well-Known Member
Yet that interaction with the environment is determined by the individual's relations to production. [Anarchist]Communism is the only mode of production under which the individual can develop freely.
Marx anticipates this point:
Marx said:
This is also the notion underpinning "Buddhist economics".
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Arguably he got this part wrong. Capitalists enrich themselves by enhancing the demand for, and then fulfilling, consumption. Capitalist owners don't exist in a vacuum - they require consumers to buy the products at a premium price. The masses fulfil a double role of worker/consumer.
Also, the idea of limited demand by the working people has been proven false by the scientific etc developments of the last 100 years. Compare the contents of a house from today's time, with one from Marx's time.
People will consume like cows in an alfalfa field - unless they develop and exercise self control, and consciously rein in their penchant for ever-increasing consumption.
7000Miles
New Member
"Theft:
The action or crime of stealing."
Try to refuse to pay the income tax. If you do, you are put in prison. You cannot opt out or chose which services the tax goes to. Therefore, the income tax is the government stealing your money because you are not able chose whether this money can or can't be taken from you. Maybe a better word would be "extortion"
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Forgot your login GardenMonkey?
7000Miles
New Member
This is the only account I've made on here. Get a mod or an admin to trace my ip or location if you want to.
Weirdly, of course, some people do seem to be able to choose whether or not they pay their dues to support the essential services of a civilised society.
Most of us call them 'parasites' and 'tax-dodging scum.'
7000Miles
New Member
A civilized society would allow people the choice. Using force is wrong.
Okay then. I've made a choice to buy fire insurance. My neighbour has decided it's not worth the effort. His house catches fire, and the wind is blowing towards mine. See the problem...?
I'm not a big fan of cholera or open sewers either
I'm not a big fan of cholera or open sewers either
Can't imagine why. If some people don't want to pay for it and as a result no-one gets it, then that's a democratic choice expressed through the wonders of the free market, and therefore it must be the best outcome for all of us. It must.
hang on...
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
... i.e. to allow the govt. to make the interest payments to private multinational lenders, servicing the gargantuan public debt created by govts. It would appear that one of the essential services of government, is enriching multinational banks.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/global-debt-guide-
Since when did you become some kind of anarcho-capitalist?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that being aware of the state of government debt, along with a general idea of where govt revenues get assigned, qualifies one for some prepackaged label.
Similar threads
