|
Eh. I'm sure the large number of right-leaning/liberal economists at organizations like the IMF, World Bank, and the finance industry would disagree with you.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I meant that those that teach economics couldn't get an actual economist job like advising companies, nations, organizations etc. Or maybe they just like teaching and research in an academic setting? The "teachers are dumb, if they weren't they'd be making more money in the private sector or think tank  " meme is harmful right-wing drivel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Yeah, Marxist economics is just wrong. Sure, alienation and rent exist, but the labor theory of value is inconsistent and the rate of profit doesn't have to fall. This is why Marxism is still only strong in the humanities/philosophy, and not in economics. what do you mean by 'Marxist economics'? because Marxist analysis has objectively been far more prescient than any other economic analytical system literally ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
I am not an economist or anything like that; I'm just a dumb working schlub. But, this mirrors my own idea for where society is moving towards. I've always thought that we're moving back to the age of robber barons and all the workers living in squalor with barely any rights for themselves  The rich have been slowly manipulating public perception of things like unions and regulations to turn back the clock to the good old days.Anyways, this sounds really interesting- though I'm afraid an idiot like me might not be able to grasp some of the topics in the book and my eyes would glaze over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:what do you mean by 'Marxist economics'? Marx isn't the only person who predicts recessions in capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Or maybe they just like teaching and research in an academic setting? The "teachers are dumb, if they weren't they'd be making more money in the private sector or think tank Yeah, most of my economics professors could get much better paid jobs in the private sector, but stayed on because they enjoyed doing research. Some of them do both (consulting and academia) at the same time, which is pretty impressive since both are incredibly time-consuming jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I meant that those that teach economics couldn't get an actual economist job like advising companies, nations, organizations etc. This is wrong. Academic jobs are in the highest demand except for a small number of non-academic jobs that only potential academic superstars can get anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, at what point what is the "bottom" for things getting "worse and worse"? If he is talking about a continual process of erosion, then theoretically if there isn't a solution, it must reach an end point. If he doesn't address it, he implies a crisis. Keynes didn't stretch his timeline out to the horizon though, and I don't think Piketty is simply saying this process is a simple swing in marketplace. Also Keynes wasn't necessarily talking about the concentration of capital as a social problem in a very long term sense. At least from what I know of him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
There is a big misconception that economists are right-wing. Entirely untrue. 58% of professional economists vote Democrat, only 23% vote Republican, and only 2% vote Libertarian. Even the ones who work in the private sector are 1.5 times more likely to vote (D) than (R). http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf This study was done in 2005/2006 before the Great Recession and the Republicans went Full Derp and shut down the government again so I imagine the numbers are even further skewed towards Democrats nowadays. Sergg fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
To be fair, voting D doesn't mean you're a leftist either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:To be fair, voting D doesn't mean you're a leftist either. There's not really any evidence that they support leftists more or less regularly than similar people of their education/paygrade, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Someone point out the demographic in the US which consistently supports true no scottsman left wingers so I can avoid criticizing them in future discussions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Someone point out the demographic in the US which consistently supports true no scottsman left wingers so I can avoid criticizing them in future discussions. http://forums.somethingawful.com/online.php?forumid=46
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I meant that those that teach economics couldn't get an actual economist job like advising companies, nations, organizations etc. Economics professorships (at least at my university) are exceptionally well-paid positions. The three highest-paid members of the faculty are economics professors, all earning low-mid six figures. Granted, my school has more of an econ focus than most place and has been known to poach faculty from other schools. Still, talented economists can do really well in a university setting. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
From my reading of the book, Piketty criticizes Marx, Keynes, Ricardo, Solow, Samuelson, Kuznets, and basically everybody else you can imagine for being overly theoretical and not relying enough on available data. He is particularly critical of Marx for ignoring the wealth of data that was available to him. He states over and over again that he is not a Marxist and pokes pretty damning holes in Marx's predictions about the future of industrial capitalism. But, to be fair, Piketty loving destroys every economist you know and love in this book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
What are the options for capitalism if it continues down this road and democratic reforms like an 80% tax bracket and greater funding for social services are impossible to pass due to capitalist control of politics? I wonder if Piketty assumes current trends can continue and people can bear growing inequality, low employment, low wages and bad public services indefinitely without doing anything. One might argue that most people did exactly that for most of human history, but such ideas were also far from anyone's political horizon until the 19th century. It had never been a realized possibility before then. I don't think 20th and 21st century humans have shown any inclination to put up with the same level of deprivation that their ancestors did. People know more, have access to more information, increasingly live together in dense urban centers, are in many cases overcoming ethnic, religious and sexual prejudices which once divided them. As such, I think confrontation between labor and capital, along 20th century lines, is more or less certain if and when policy proposals like Piketty's fail to moderate capitalism's tendencies toward wealth concentration. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:What are the options for capitalism if it continues down this road and democratic reforms like an 80% tax bracket and greater funding for social services are impossible to pass due to capitalist control of politics? I wonder if Piketty assumes current trends can continue and people can bear growing inequality, low employment, low wages and bad public services indefinitely without doing anything. One might argue that most people did exactly that for most of human history, but such ideas were also far from anyone's political horizon until the 19th century. It had never been a realized possibility before then. Counterpoint: North Korea exists. That said, there seem to be two ways out of this trap: 1) A truly massive war destroys enough capital that there's equality for a while. that's what we did in WW1/WW2. Unfortunately, any such war these days would be nuclear and would destroy all human life on the planet. 2) The economic situation gets bad enough, and the left-wing economic theory gets strong enough, that a popular political elements, and business interests who realize equality is in their economic interest, combine to implement partial reforms -- the New Deal model, essentially. This one's achievable but not any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Counterpoint: North Korea exists. True, but in one small country which was underdeveloped and had limited literacy and political development for the majority of the population. I can't prove it but I really doubt it's scaleable to a global level or workable in countries which have previously been democratic and developed. Hieronymous Alloy posted:1) A truly massive war destroys enough capital that there's equality for a while. that's what we did in WW1/WW2. Unfortunately, any such war these days would be nuclear and would destroy all human life on the planet. That is one way out, and you could argue that we may also see a resurgence of colonialism and increase in fighting between major powers over resources as we did in centuries past. Of course, there are fewer resources to take, diminishing returns on many of those resources as they get harder to extract, fewer countries from which they can easily extract resources without a fight from the local populace and more. China, ironically enough, is finally beginning to see a strong labor movement willing to shut down production at multinational businesses, which they didn't have when they were a more rural country. They'll probably get some higher wages, and what then? Those companies can move to a few and declining number of "underexploited" countries, but in general it might start to become cheaper to just invest in labor-saving machinery than paying a living wage to either American and even third-world workers. That seems like a sure recipe for overproduction and an angry, jobless, starving planet. Hieronymous Alloy posted:2) The economic situation gets bad enough, and the left-wing economic theory gets strong enough, that a popular political elements, and business interests who realize equality is in their economic interest, combine to implement partial reforms -- the New Deal model, essentially. This one's achievable but not any time soon. That's an interesting take on the New Deal, that businesses recognized equality was in their economic interest and voluntarily went along with reforms because. You could interpret events in another way, too: businessmen and politicians witnessed the Russian Revolution, saw the growth of a radical labor movement in the USA as the economy was collapsed, and (temporarily) acquiesced to workers' interests so they wouldn't die. In the absence of real revolutionary danger I don't know that they'd be so willing to compromise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:True, but in one small country which was underdeveloped and had limited literacy and political development for the majority of the population. I can't prove it but I really doubt it's scaleable to a global level or workable in countries which have previously been democratic and developed. If things get bad enough then revolution will be a real threat. Not that I think "capital" is totally in control. If people are dumb enough to continue voting against their own interests then humanity is screwed in any democratic system, be it capitalism or socialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
A large part of people being 'dumb' involves others with whom they identify presenting bad ideas and misinformation to them and framing the world in an emotional, frightening way.
rockopete fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Do you think the problem is that people are dumb and voting incorrectly, asfdf32? The opinions of most Americans are far to the left of what congress allows to be passed, and what Obama has attempted to pass. When they voted for Obama in 2008 they voted for someone who presented himself as a passionate left-wing candidate, not a mushy centrist. Gerrymandering, election funding, regulatory capture and corporate influence over nearly all politicians seem to nullify the actual preferences of the public. So I don't think they're stupid and voting against their interests, the system just makes voting a poor way to effect the changes they want to see. Corporate control of media and active disinformation about science makes things worse, of course, but even with those factors at play most are smart enough to (roughly) vote for their interests.  If this pattern were reversed or even equal you might have had a point, but it's a pretty clear pattern: poor people vote left(ish), rich people vote for the right. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Do you think the problem is that people are dumb and voting incorrectly, asfdf32? The opinions of most Americans are far to the left of what congress allows to be passed, and what Obama has attempted to pass. When they voted for Obama in 2008 they voted for someone who presented himself as a passionate left-wing candidate, not a mushy centrist. Gerrymandering, election funding, regulatory capture and corporate influence over nearly all politicians seem to nullify the actual preferences of the public. So I don't think they're stupid and voting against their interests, the system just makes voting a poor way to effect the changes they want to see. You're kidding yourself if you think the American population is significantly left of current policy. This is the population which opposed the last healthcare bill. Personally I think our representative government is quite responsive to public will, if anything, perhaps too responsive. Plenty of sitting R representatives bent to the tea party only because they had too, not because they wanted too. So do I think people are dumb? No not really. And that means I don't think they're dumb enough to just believe anything put on a screen in front of them. Hence I don't think money has anywhere near as much power as people here like to think. And again, if I thought money (power) was totally in control then I'd seriously reconsider all forms of democracy, not just our current one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Many respond to PPACA negatively in polls when it's called Obamacare, but a significant majority support it when you simply list its provisions and don't call it by that name. Thank corporate media branding and disinformation for that interesting discrepancy. But I think the graph I posted above says all that needs to be said: if you're poor and/or a minority you will vote for the lefter party, if you're rich and/or white you'll vote for republicans. The only group arguably voting against their interests are poor whites, but everyone else does exactly what you'd expect them to do based on their material interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Do you think the problem is that people are dumb and voting incorrectly, asfdf32? The opinions of most Americans are far to the left of what congress allows to be passed, and what Obama has attempted to pass. When they voted for Obama in 2008 they voted for someone who presented himself as a passionate left-wing candidate, not a mushy centrist. Gerrymandering, election funding, regulatory capture and corporate influence over nearly all politicians seem to nullify the actual preferences of the public. So I don't think they're stupid and voting against their interests, the system just makes voting a poor way to effect the changes they want to see. If voters were smart then they'd know that voting for Republicans is never in their interest, unless your only interest is short-term tax cuts, but even then, if they were smart, they'd know that isn't actually in their best interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Some additional information suggesting that people understand their interests well enough, even with such a biased and dishonest media:
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You're kidding yourself if you think the American population is significantly left of current policy. This is the population which opposed the last healthcare bill. Personally I think our representative government is quite responsive to public will, if anything, perhaps too responsive. Plenty of sitting R representatives bent to the tea party only because they had too, not because they wanted too. Just off the top of my head. Gun issues http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/23/broad-support-for-renewed-background-checks-bill-skepticism-about-its-chances/ 81% of Americans think all gun sales should be subject to background checks. This is after the bill failed last year. I can't find recent numbers but I heard on an NPR segment recently that the numbers are largely the same. Progressive income tax http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-show-longtime-support-for-tax-hikes-on-rich/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/inequality-poverty-divide-republicans-more-than-democrats/ The only disagreement here is between Republicans who agree with Democrats and independents that the system should be more progressive, and those who don't, about a 50-50 split within the party. No action at all, just letting the Bush tax cuts partially expire took a near government shutdown. asdf32 posted:So do I think people are dumb? No not really. And that means I don't think they're dumb enough to just believe anything put on a screen in front of them. Hence I don't think money has anywhere near as much power as people here like to think. And again, if I thought money (power) was totally in control then I'd seriously reconsider all forms of democracy, not just our current one. You're a bit late on that one. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 Princeton study posted:Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. By the way, if this would make you reconsider democracy, what other system would you replace it with that wouldn't be worse? rockopete fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Many respond to PPACA negatively in polls when it's called Obamacare, but a significant majority support it when you simply list its provisions and don't call it by that name. Thank corporate media branding and disinformation for that interesting discrepancy. But I think the graph I posted above says all that needs to be said: if you're poor and/or a minority you will vote for the lefter party, if you're rich and/or white you'll vote for republicans. The only group arguably voting against their interests are poor whites, but everyone else does exactly what you'd expect them to do based on their material interests. This makes me wonder: has there been a recent poll asking the public what they think the PPACA is? I wouldn't be surprised if a large chunk of the voting populace is significantly misinformed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:
Well, I was phoneposting earlier, but yeah, I'd agree that the "self-interest" was pretty broad. Some realized "wait, we need customers," some realized "wait, the socialists will kill us."
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
I agree, Hieronymous Alloy. You could think of it as a carrot and stick approach, but it's likely the only reason they ever took the "stick" seriously was the victory of a socialist revolution just a decade prior. Without some kind of similar revolution somewhere in the world its doubtful they'd be as eager to give in now. The CEOs of today know they'll get $20m bonuses even if they run their company (or country) into the ground, and the shareholders want profit right now, not 20 years from now, so there's not really a strong incentive to worry about overproduction. That's somebody else's problem.
OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Just off the top of my head. None of this is significantly left of current policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:None of this is significantly left of current policy. It actually goes to show how far right political discourse and perception has shifted when anything like this, which is simply moderately sensible, is seen as "leftist."
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I agree, Hieronymous Alloy. You could think of it as a carrot and stick approach, but it's likely the only reason they ever took the "stick" seriously was the victory of a socialist revolution just a decade prior. Without some kind of similar revolution somewhere in the world its doubtful they'd be as eager to give in now. The CEOs of today know they'll get $20m bonuses even if they run their company (or country) into the ground, and the shareholders want profit right now, not 20 years from now, so there's not really a strong incentive to worry about overproduction. That's somebody else's problem. Yeah, you're probably right that a credible threat of actual violent socialist revolution is probably necessary, for the same reasons that MLK needed the Black Panthers. Hopefully matters will fall short of actually needing such, especially in the age of "terrorism." It's hard to see how any threat significant enough to make a difference wouldn't also result in a horrible backlash and horrible massacre. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Many respond to PPACA negatively in polls when it's called Obamacare, but a significant majority support it when you simply list its provisions and don't call it by that name. Thank corporate media branding and disinformation for that interesting discrepancy. But I think the graph I posted above says all that needs to be said: if you're poor and/or a minority you will vote for the lefter party, if you're rich and/or white you'll vote for republicans. The only group arguably voting against their interests are poor whites, but everyone else does exactly what you'd expect them to do based on their material interests. The graph says that people vote for their own interests and that's all that needs to be said? Then why would you talk about the influence of "corporate branding and disinformation" which directly contradicts this? Also, going back a post, who the hell didn't think Obama was a centrist? I voted for him because I thought he was. I'm disappointed because he's been bad at it. The people who didn't think he was a centrist were the ones who didn't vote for him. rockopete posted:Just off the top of my head. Do I just need to repeat the same sentence again? You're deceiving yourself if you think this means the population is significantly left of current policy. Guns are an example of a vocal minority versus an indifferent majority. Well, less direct democracy first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Do I just need to repeat the same sentence again? You're deceiving yourself if you think this means the population is significantly left of current policy. Sorry, I should have specified that I was posting that more in response to your assertion that "Personally I think our representative government is quite responsive to public will, if anything, perhaps too responsive" than your comment about "significantly left". asdf32 posted:Well, less direct democracy first. Ok, though that's a little different than reconsidering all forms of democracy. And again, what makes you think the current system hasn't been entirely captured by the elite? That doesn't require people to be dumb, just apathetic and distracted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The graph says that people vote for their own interests and that's all that needs to be said? Then why would you talk about the influence of "corporate branding and disinformation" which directly contradicts this? It is important to see that, even with a thoroughly biased media, most Americans are able to recognize their own interests most of the time. They'd be even better at it with honest media and better education. To conclude, the problem is not that the working class won't vote for their interests. They already do. The problem is that their votes and their needs don't matter, the political apparatus does not reflect their interests and desires in policy due to the control the rich have over politicians and officials. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, you're probably right that a credible threat of actual violent socialist revolution is probably necessary, for the same reasons that MLK needed the Black Panthers. Hopefully matters will fall short of actually needing such, especially in the age of "terrorism." It's hard to see how any threat significant enough to make a difference wouldn't also result in a horrible backlash and horrible massacre. The only problem with any violent movement that succeeds is that it usually isn't unified and it creates just as many problems as it tries to stop because the after party usually involves a crackdown on personal freedom. You would have to create a society that somehow skips doing anything as skilled labor joins unskilled and no one has the ability to consume anymore. I could see that in a social structure like Russia was or if we were hit by a sudden massive economic or natural disaster. I understand the economic output of the lower classes are small, but if millions of them started dropping out it wouldn't be able to be ignored. I'm strictly speaking about the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Btw, if you look at some of the health care polls that are a bit more detailed, a good proportion of the population that opposes Obamacare was because it didn't go far enough. And if you look at polls on Social Security, Medicare and most other social programs there is very strong support for them including stopping cuts. Remember, the "centrist" approach in DC recently was represented by Simpson-Bowles. Anyway, it is very likely will be a continual crisis, but any "counter-response" will be confused, fragmentary and likely fail multiple times. The media of today is far more advanced and ever present than that of the late 19th century and early 20th century, and has access to far more efficient and diverse methods of dissemination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Anyway, it is very likely will be a continual crisis, but any "counter-response" will be confused, fragmentary and likely fail multiple times. The media of today is far more advanced and ever present than that of the late 19th century and early 20th century, and has access to far more efficient and diverse methods of dissemination. This is the same point that I try to make in these discussions. While the media/propaganda has always been used to influence public opinion, our knowledge of marketing (which can apply to either products/services or ideology) is far more sophisticated than it it was in the past and people are exposed to media for a greater portion of their waking hours than they were prior to television/the internet/smart phones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
That technological shift helps both sides spread information to more people, more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 09:27
|
|