Modern Economics

One thing is certain and that is a stable economy cannot be based upon theft. The creation of fiat currency is theft and any economy based upon fiat currency is doomed to failure. There isn't a single example of fiat currency not eventually leading to the collapse of the monetary system over the long term. Fiat currency steals the labor of the individual that is stored as "money" in the economy.

 

Then you cannot be in favour of capitalism as, by definition, its based on theft (i.e. accumulation through economic rents created by exploitation). Modern economics agrees on that, the different schools of thought just use different vocab for the underpayment

 

The only difference being that biologists aren't trying to steal your money or tell you how to live.

 

The inherent flaw of modern economic schools of thought are that they is oversimplified. For example, the classical supply and demand model is based upon the belief that the economy can reach equilibrium and that the economy actually wants to reach equilibrium. The model therefore, is terrible at picking up the more intuitive and complex aspects of the economy.

 

Neoclassical supply and demand does no such thing. It only uses equilibrium to describe a point where there is, ceteris paribus, no tendency to change. It does not predict that will ever happen as we never have ceteris paribus holding. There are some huge 'issues' with the neoclassical approach but you haven't picked one!

 

It seems you have this nice little circular logic thing going on. In your world Capitalism requires government, because economic rents are required by definition (your definition) in Capitalism.

The excess profits provided by economic rents, require government intervention by tarrif, regulation, tax breaks, enforced monopoly, etc. Economic rents are minimized by comptetition, but for government "protection" of those rents. (Is that what you mean when you say Capitalism requires government "protection"?)

 

There was zero attempt to argue against the point quoted. That doesn't surprise me. As I noted, orthodox and heterodox economics are in agreement over the existence of labour underpayment. Now at least try and blag that you can respond!

 

It is an amusing statement being Hetrodox is just about any ecomonic school of thought that isn't orthodox.

Another of the many "economics, according to Reiver" statements.

 

Again no content! And your even wrong in your prance. I couldn't include the likes of the Austrians, for example, as they have no coherent labour theory (making them as useful as the Georgists).

Let's try to put it right. Given the consistency in the economic theory (be it neoclassical, Marxist or institutionalist etc etc etc) and the empirical evidence in support, how would you deny the existence of labour underpayment?

 

When you said "heterodox economics are in agreement over the existence of labour underpayment", you erred because Austrians, being part of the hetrodox, have no labor theory?

You waste my time with your grand statements that are at best, only partially true. Put in a little effort, I am not your proof reader.

As a start, why don't you try using the definitions agreed upon by the rest of the economic community?

 

Again no content! Try again (and its your last chance as your dodge bores me): Given the consistency in the economic theory (be it neoclassical, Marxist or institutionalist etc etc etc) and the empirical evidence in support, how would you deny the existence of labour underpayment?

 

You want economic content, try providing some accuracy. Or does that make economics boring to you?

Empirical evidence, or confirmation bias?

Do I deny the existance of labor underpayment, no more than I deny the existance of labor overpayment. Both are forms of economic rents, exacerbated by government's penchant avoiding their responsibility of property protection (which costs then money), so the can strong arm businesses with tax law and regulation (which nets them money).

 

Getting content out of you is very difficult. And when that's achieved you make all sort of silly comments. The point is that it doesn't just exist. Its the norm, ensuring a labour market that is of course based on both exchange and coercion (as the standard exchange theory would lead to wages reflecting productivity criteria)

This is meaningless drivel. Try and refer to some labour economics

 

What exactly is your economic content?

Drivel? How amusing.

Your typical statements in a vacuum, no details. Coercion by the employer, the government, the customer? How big is the underpayment, 1%, 90%. The devil is in the details.

Try providing some content.

 

Not really. I find your vacuous replies tedious. Here was my little request: Try and refer to some labour economics. Here we are referring to how labour economics predicts underpayment as the norm. That must describe coercive relations, by definition

 

You keep "referring", try providing some content.

 

Your dodge is low brow. Last time: "Try and refer to some labour economics. Here we are referring to how labour economics predicts underpayment as the norm. That must describe coercive relations, by definition", or do you think otherwise?

 

I repeat

 

You were asked politely to answer a simple question: "Try and refer to some labour economics. Here we are referring to how labour economics predicts underpayment as the norm. That must describe coercive relations, by definition, or do you think otherwise?". I'm not interested in your inane dodge routine. Answer or be ignored on the thread. I'm not prepared to waste any more time on you

 

That's good, as I'm tired of trying to get any information from you.

Go back to playing with the novices.

 

This isn't a very cunning comment! You could try and put that right. Themostimproved made a valid comment over discrimination (i.e. we know that, despite discrimination being inefficient, market forces doesn't drive out the problem). The question is "why?". Can you refer to a theory of discrimination from 'modern economics' that explains that phenomenon? If not, can you refer to an analysis utilised in a different discipline that can?

 

Why isn't discrimination eliminated through competition?

Because we aren't "rational economic men" seeking at all opportunities to maximize profits. We're humans with preferences, biases and prejudices. The idea that some evil will be undone simply because it doesn't make good economic sense is rubbish, I don't mean to say that given enough time that labor market competition couldn't reduce the effects of discrimination, but rather that it's incapable of eliminating it because it is a cultural phenomenon that will only change as norms change.

 

That's not enough on its own. Technically, if we just referred to prejudice through 'taste for discrimination', we'd expect the profit motive to still do the business: i.e. the non-discriminator will out-perform the discriminator and eventually drive them out. We'd have to go further, such as taking the norms a step further: i.e. organisational adaptation where, even the discriminator, has to follow cultural norms or suffer the consequences (e.g. the boss forced to reject a female promotion because of prejudice amongst his male-dominated management team). That won't be dandy reading to the libertarian types though as it leads to an institutionalist analysis of labour markets focused on conflict and coercion

 

Then we'd have to assume that discrimination isn't ubiquitous, it is however, moreover the positive effects generated by the non-discriminator simply fail to overcome the productivity gains made by those comfortable and happy with their work environment. We prefer and work better in homogeneous environments.

Social capital is a highly underrated currency, but again this just underscores the fact that it's hardwired into the culture, particularly in places with highly heterogeneous populations. Attempts at creating policy to resolve this have been abject failures. For instance the group that benefited the most from Affirmative Action were white females...

 

Then you'd expect to see segregation. We don't. To explain, for example, the differences in performance across hierarchy we'd also need to refer to Marxist analysis (which suggests that all workers suffer through divide and conquer)

Its more than just social capital. We start with how markets fail. The first best becomes permanently unachievable. Even short run productivity losses from AA is then deemed to be appropriate. Breaking down perceptions becomes crucial