It has, and has been doing it much better than the alternatives. A coersive enviroment creates a prime environment for a non-coersive competitor. The biggest road block is government regulation. Is no income differential efficient? If not, what is the "most efficient" income differential? What role does government play in exacerbating income differentail?
By definition, we have to refer to exchange and conflict. There's no point in suggesting otherwise as it will be seen as obvious utopianism You may want to ignore reality, but most won't bother with such silliness. Take something like the Coase Theorem. Opportunism only requires asymmetric information. Given such problems are the norm, coercion is also the norm. Its easy to refer to efficient income differentials. One can, for example, simply control for human capital and compensating differentials. Hierarchy, however, is a different proposition. See, for example, how its used to maintain discriminatory practices (and, by definition, negates the standard 'taste for discrimination' analysis that suggests market forces- through the non-discriminator finding greater profit opportunities- can drive out such problems) Government simply has to ensure the reproduction of capitalist profits. Its impact will differ according to the evolution of capitalism, as shown by the differences in outcome between social democracy and liberal democracy
The more the scam middle class, the more poor they create, the less wealth they collect. Exactly. In fact, if they scam less, they create a bigger middle class, more wealth. They are motivated to grow the middle class. Now, lets look at government. The rich contribute to politicians, especially if they get favors in return. The middle class doesn't pay much in taxes, don't contribute much to politicians, don't vote as a block, and don't need much government support. The poor vote more as a block, and need government help, creating government jobs.
Nonsense, they are motivated in reinforcing hierarchy and reducing social mobility. That ensures economic rents through underemployment and underpayment
I agree conflict and exhange are essential. When the exchange shifts in the favor of business, an opportunity exists for a competitor. The conflict between competitors is for customers, then the customer wins. Are we talking the same Coase Therom? The question wasn't can one (who is the "one" you are talking about?) control, it was what is the optimum differential? Where does hierarchy come to play in free market capitalism? Is there an ap for that? That is on par with letting government rid the planet of undesirable plants and animals. They don't have the information needed to avoid unintended concequences. Consider the management of a company with only one major competitor. Their number 1 priority is beating is understanding their business, their customer, and the competitor. Yet, they don't have enough information to make the best decisions. Some government cubicle hamster that doesn't even understand the product is going to make better decisions? ROTFL.
I'm not going to bother with your comment as you've started with such a silly comment. Conflict theory informs us how opportunism is damaging. Please learn some basics before you spout your prance
I ask again, from the poor? You call me silly, but have yet to show any rationale why people would behave in the way you say they do. Are you sure you even understand economics?
Already told you: its about hierarchy and creation of inefficient income differentials that magnify economic rents. Poverty is the by-product of an economic inefficiency that you're prepared to ignore I understand numerous political economic schools of thought and apply them appropriately to the labour market. Its an approach not appreciated by the utopians that ignore economic reality due to ideological needs
Smart enough to rip off the public, but stupid enough that they pee in their own pool. Yeah, right. Understand, or parrot? I have yet to find anyone that understands a subject, that can't explain it.
This is just an inane attempt to hide from how economics rents are created. The problem is that you're in no position to judge. Economics isn't a subject suited to you, given you're hamstrung by your ideological stance
I quite enjoy economics, in a dialog. You use economics (or at least the words used in economics) as a bludgeon to justify your own depressing ideology.
You again show no understanding. I refer to political economy to understand empirical phenomena (that result reflects my occupation). In contrast, you hide from economics. Again, there's no debate in that. I'm happy to cheer all those that refer to economics with some validity (be it a Keynesian or be it an Austrian economist). You haven't given me any opportunity to cheer in your direction
If that was the case, we would never have escaped a war lord style existance. Who fixes it? Gooberment?
Which wouldn't be consistent with political economic understanding of capitalism. You've allowed your personal opinion to cloud your economic reference
I'm talking current and recent, not past and previous. Do you believe that the recent actions of the rich act to grow the middle-class? Please explain. -Meta
I don't find the question pertinent, nor did I find your original remark useful. I don't give a toss if you're left or right wing, just try to show some valid economic comment!
What have you explained that I should understand? If you earn a living with your "understanding" of economics, it is small wonder you have such a negative attitude towards capitalism. ROTFL I have yet to see any indication of that. Of course not, I'm disagreeing with your opinions.
You've obviously got nothing to say. This of course reflects your lack of understanding of economics. Get back to me when you can impress me with something that makes sense
Human nature isn't constant and its cretinous to suggest otherwise. We change to our response to contraints
