|
Ardennes posted:I notice a lot of "basic income is going to save us" going around. Yeah, it's odd isn't it? On one hand, people in power could give up their power and money to help people without jobs now that they aren't needed. On the other hand, they could create new ways to kill you or let you die while keeping their power or potentially expanding it. *Goes and proposes a Hunger Games style amendment to the draft, starts multiple ground wars with poorly-planned, indefinite occupations* Something tells me that even my ridiculous example is more likely than mincome. 
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
uncop posted:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/its-time-to-junk-the-flawed-economic-models-that-make-the-world-a-dangerous-place Thank you very much, I'll get to reading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I notice a lot of "basic income is going to save us" going around. That's because it's relatively hard to see a way out from where we are. I'm actually a much bigger fan of guaranteed employment, but that has a huge host of problems associated with it as well and it's just as dystopian (if not more so) if it's done poorly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I notice a lot of "basic income is going to save us" going around. If there's one fairly persistent trend in the post 1970s world it seems to be an almost complete aversion or sense of disdain toward politics, and one manifestation of that trend is that people hope some narrow and specific policy can substitute for more profound or sweeping changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:That's because it's relatively hard to see a way out from where we are. I'm actually a much bigger fan of guaranteed employment, but that has a huge host of problems associated with it as well and it's just as dystopian (if not more so) if it's done poorly. Granted, I think we are locked in for "dystopian" at this point. The problem is mincome/basic income really just doesn't fit in the liberal model and if you are looking for another model, you can do much better. Also, I think it is much more likely governments and their allies would rather spent on a police state to suppress riots/revolution than the type of massive spending that mincome requires. There is no way to fund such a program without complete capital controls and huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the state. If those very same people are doing everything possible to stop the most minimal progress at this point, why wouldn't they pull out all the stops? There there are the other reasons I have mentioned previously. In all honesty, I think the state socialist and the liberal model both failed and we are completely out of workable ideas (I haven't every of anything). If anything the great question of the modern age is "what the gently caress do we do now?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If there's one fairly persistent trend in the post 1970s world it seems to be an almost complete aversion or sense of disdain toward politics, and one manifestation of that trend is that people hope some narrow and specific policy can substitute for more profound or sweeping changes. Then what do you suggest we advocate for? I agree that UBI is a sham (somehow making ourselves even more dependent upon the whims of capital is supposed to help somehow?) but I don't see any other option, realistic or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If anything the great question of the modern age is "what the gently caress do we do now?" Not really. The problem is we know exactly what should be done but are actively prevented from doing it. Things we should do (that don't involve a violent seizure of the means of production): 1) Enact industry specific protectionist policy designed to build up a sizable industrial base 2) Convene via international assembly to come up with a tangible carbon budget and the framework necessary to implement it (imo carbon tax > cap&trade) 3) Reform the study of economics*** 4) Election reform meant to reduce the influence of monied individuals 5) Media policy to reduce the dependence of mass-media firms on ad dollars The real great quetion is, "how do you dismantle your master's house with the master's tools?" And if you can't do that, "how to blow up the master's house?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I think we are locked in for "dystopian" at this point. The problem is mincome/basic income really just doesn't fit in the liberal model and if you are looking for another model, you can do much better. Wait, why do you think a UBI doesn't slot into liberal economic models? It's far closer to being a market based solution than any other form of social welfare given that it's entirely based around individuals making choices about when and how to spend benefits. This is one of the main reasons why there are a ton of people on the left who strongly oppose it. I'll grant you that something like guaranteed employment is way outside of where we are now, but guaranteed income is like the textbook example of sticking a bandaid on the problem so that things can stay more or less exactly as they are right now. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
call to action posted:All I ever needed to know about Krugman was summed up in his columns smearing Bernie Even Blythe was saying Bernie was full of poo poo during the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Wait, why do you think a UBI doesn't slot into liberal economic models? It's far closer to being a market based solution than any other form of social welfare given that it's entirely based around individuals making choices about when and how to spend benefits. This is one of the main reasons why there are a ton of people on the left who strongly oppose it. A key part of the liberal model is the protection of property, UBI would require massive amounts of taxation which would violate that. Also, I don't know why guaranteed employment would be "way outside" of where we are now compared to guaranteed income.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A key part of the liberal model is the protection of property, UBI would require massive amounts of taxation which would violate that. How much would it cost vs what's currently spent on welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment, low-income tax credits, etc..? I would assume that if you are giving everyone a level of income which allows for basic survival that it would replace these programs since they would become irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A key part of the liberal model is the protection of property, UBI would require massive amounts of taxation which would violate that. UBI isn't actually a downward wealth transfer. Keep in mind that companies that don't pay their employees enough to live enough on are really the largest beneficiaries of most social services and a UBI isn't going to be any different, especially since anyone who would strictly benefit from it is going to be too poor to do anything other than shove the money right back into the economy. It's politically difficult (probably impossible), but it's not going to massively shake up society. People at the lower end will still work, they'll just do it for a pittance now since the majority of their income will come from the government. The people who don't work are going to pay all that money back into the system as consumers too. The money moves around, but the wealth is still going up. Guaranteed employment is the policy equivalent of dropping a nuke on the demand side of the labor market, though. There are tons of businesses that would be completely unable to compete with an employer guaranteeing to hire an infinite number of people at fair wages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:How much would it cost vs what's currently spent on welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment, low-income tax credits, etc..? I would assume that if you are giving everyone a level of income which allows for basic survival that it would replace these programs since they would become irrelevant. If it costs the same as those programs, then it wouldn't actually change that much compared to the current situation in the first place. (Administrative costs are not a significant part of that spending.) If anything, you are just melting down the social safety net for "bloc grants." Paradoxish posted:UBI isn't actually a downward wealth transfer. Keep in mind that companies that don't pay their employees enough to live enough on are really the largest beneficiaries of most social services and a UBI isn't going to be any different, especially since anyone who would strictly benefit from it is going to be too poor to do anything other than shove the money right back into the economy. It's politically difficult (probably impossible), but it's not going to massively shake up society. People at the lower end will still work, they'll just do it for a pittance now since the majority of their income will come from the government. The people who don't work are going to pay all that money back into the system as consumers too. The money moves around, but the wealth is still going up. Likewise, if UBI isn't an actual transfer of wealth, what is being done at this point beyond changing the name? If people can't survive on the social safety net at this point and a transfer of wealth isn't happening, how are people getting to A to B here? (I don't want to be rude but...don't say saving on administrative costs.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:Even Blythe was saying Bernie was full of poo poo during the election. Only the part about bringing outsourced factory jobs back. Paradoxish posted:I'm actually a much bigger fan of guaranteed employment Why not guaranteed unemployment? What's the point of advancing in automation, computers and machines if it doesn't free us from the chains of labor? Not only that but you could create a abundance of what we need by just 10% of the global population. Granted we wouldn't be able to have the "endless" choices we do now, but who cares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Likewise, if UBI isn't an actual transfer of wealth, what is being done at this point beyond changing the name? If people can't survive on the social safety net at this point and a transfer of wealth isn't happening, how are people getting to A to B here? (I don't want to be rude but...don't say saving on administrative costs.) You've misread my posts if you think that I'm suggesting that we gut government services and replace them with a UBI. You could probably drop some means tested stuff, but I think implementing a UBI while gutting safety nets is an abhorrent idea. Ideally a UBI would result in far, far fewer people on means tested services, but that doesn't mean you get rid of them. Even better, drop the means testing and just provide the services. Other than I'm not really sure what you're asking. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of UBI so I'm not trying to seriously advocate for it. I do think it's better than nothing and better than what we have now just because it offers people a little more agency. The ability to say "you know what? gently caress this lovely job" and quit without having something else lined up is a pretty nice feature that would probably have positive effects on the labor market on the lower end. The long term security of knowing that your income will never fall below [x amount] is good too. Confounding Factor posted:Why not guaranteed unemployment? What's the point of advancing in automation, computers and machines if it doesn't free us from the chains of labor? This is good if we literally no longer need labor, but my big fear is that detaching people from the labor market risks creating a permanent underclass. I'm down with people who don't want to work not having to work, but as long as we actually need human labor you're going to end up with that divide between people who have jobs and people who don't have jobs. Guaranteed employment at least prevents people from becoming unemployable because they haven't worked for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You've misread my posts if you think that I'm suggesting that we gut government services and replace them with a UBI. You could probably drop some means tested stuff, but I think implementing a UBI while gutting safety nets is an abhorrent idea. Ideally a UBI would result in far, far fewer people on means tested services, but that doesn't mean you get rid of them. Even better, drop the means testing and just provide the services. The issue is how to pay for it i.e taxation in a world with free capital movement. quote:This is good if we literally no longer need labor, but my big fear is that detaching people from the labor market risks creating a permanent underclass. I'm down with people who don't want to work not having to work, but as long as we actually need human labor you're going to end up with that divide between people who have jobs and people who don't have jobs. Guaranteed employment at least prevents people from becoming unemployable because they haven't worked for a decade. I think most people like having " a place to be" even if their job is relatively unimportant. People shouldn't have to slave away in order to survive, but by the same token, I think most people probably would still crave some type of schedule even if it was subconsciously. I have seen this first-hand with people on "funemployment" and a lot of the time they have no idea of what to do with themselves. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is good if we literally no longer need labor, but my big fear is that detaching people from the labor market risks creating a permanent underclass. I'm down with people who don't want to work not having to work, but as long as we actually need human labor you're going to end up with that divide between people who have jobs and people who don't have jobs. Guaranteed employment at least prevents people from becoming unemployable because they haven't worked for a decade. I don't want you to misconstrue my replies as flippant, but aren't we sorta in the beginning stages of having a permanent underclass that will start to slowly expand over the next few decades? I know economic predictions 20-30 years out is silly, but even economists are worried that unemployment is going to be very high. They could be wrong about how severe that is but its undisputable how disruptive automation and technology is in various industries. The problem is we already let loose these advances in the economy without considering the "unintended" consequences and by the time our politicians come around to craft policies to impose limitations its already too late. Not only that but our government is ill-equipped to deal with workers displaced by automation. So let's stop trying to impose changes to the private sector and roll out a huge public works program where we can do guaranteed employment. Let the government back it. In the short term we can address our aging and crumbling infrastructure and other projects but in the long term we are going to gradually have to move people away from labor. Of course that "gradually moving away" has so many assumptions built into it. I have no idea how that could work. Dividing those who have jobs and those that don't, as you point out, is going to create a lot of tension. I don't have any real solutions to it. Where I am optimistic with a UBI is more money is going back into the economy. We've had flat wages for decades, many Americans already burdened by lots of debt to cover the rise in living costs, where else can they possibly supplement? Still UBI is more of a band-aid to dealing head on with economic inequality and fairer wealth distribution. But that's going to require the political will to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
uncop posted:Actually models are supposed to apply to the thing they're describing. Like, it's completely different when your model produces slightly incorrect predictions due to some simplifications and when your model predicts the opposite of reality. (For example, seeing "The Great Moderation" as a sign of increasing stability instead of an incoming debt crisis, or predicting that austerity increases private spending) It's interesting that you pick this example: "predicting that austerity increases private spending" when we were taking about Krugman. That might have been a bad choice. But the truth is I don't disagree about the problems with the basic underlying assumptions of the models. But I think there are other things going on and the larger problem are economists that ignore data and reality and stick to the model in the face of data that disagrees. Again this is to say I don't nesissarily disagree with you about economics in general. But again one will find Krugman had quite a bit too say about that particular issue too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think most people like having " a place to be" even if their job is relatively unimportant. People shouldn't have to slave away in order to survive, but by the same token, I think most people probably would still crave some type of schedule even if it was subconsciously. I have seen this first-hand with people on "funemployment" and a lot of the time they have no idea of what to do with themselves. You only need this because what we used to have (community and family) is destroyed
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
call to action posted:You only need this because what we used to have (community and family) is destroyed Eh, I feel like I am doing fine on both fronts but I think would rather have somewhere regularly to be with a goal to it as well even if was only part-time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue is how to pay for it i.e taxation in a world with free capital movement. Just because it's not practical doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about. We have the wealth to implement pie-in-the-sky policies, so it's a discussion worth having even if the political will isn't there. quote:I think most people like having " a place to be" even if their job is relatively unimportant. People shouldn't have to slave away in order to survive, but by the same token, I think most people probably would still crave some type of schedule even if it was subconsciously. I have seen this first-hand with people on "funemployment" and a lot of the time they have no idea of what to do with themselves. Maybe, but I wouldn't make a blanket generalization like this. Full disclosure: I spent about two years being willfully unemployed and living off of savings, and I'd probably consider it the most productive and fulfilling part of my life. I do full-time (mostly remote, where possible) consulting work nowadays because I realized I never wanted to go back to a normal office routine. I'm not saying that this is what most people want, but I was extraordinarily privileged to be in a position to make that kind of choice and I think it would be a net benefit to society if more people could make that decision for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh, I feel like I am doing fine on both fronts but I think would rather have somewhere regularly to be with a goal to it as well even if was only part-time. Capitalism has killed off the village and whatever you want to define the family unit. Now you just have migrants that move to where capital requires them unrestrained geographically. That's why I always laugh whenever a Republican extols family values.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Capitalism has killed off the village and whatever you want to define the family unit. Now you just have migrants that move to where capital requires them unrestrained geographically. Can't say I am sad about this though. The Pater Familias should never have been, it's just a shame so much was lost along the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's interesting that you pick this example: "predicting that austerity increases private spending" when we were taking about Krugman. That might have been a bad choice. But the truth is I don't disagree about the problems with the basic underlying assumptions of the models. But I think there are other things going on and the larger problem are economists that ignore data and reality and stick to the model in the face of data that disagrees. Again this is to say I don't nesissarily disagree with you about economics in general. But again one will find Krugman had quite a bit too say about that particular issue too. I think I was too hasty writing that part, since DSGE models are associated with New Keynesianism (although everyone uses them now) but NKs like Krugman have never thought that crisis-time austerity works. As far as I know, they do believe the opposite though, that increasing government spending outside crisis time crowds out private spending. And that's why it was so important for them to roll back fiscal stimulus right after 2008. I guess a lot of the historical flip-flopping in Krugman's policy opinions has been related to whether he thinks at the time that the Great Recession is over or not. One thing he's been consistently right about is calling out idiotic European ordoliberals. I'll attack him on the content of his writing rather than his person next time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
uncop posted:Krugman is a neoclassical hack that constantly shifts his beliefs to be firmly mainstream or an acceptable level of radical depending on who's asking. New Keynesian is just a brand name for neoclassicals that believe in fiscal policy during crises, but only for a very limited window. The Obama stimulus is a great example of New Keynesian policy: You had humongous deficit spending for a single year that concentrated on bailouts, and calls for making a full shift from fiscal to monetary policy before hyperinflation or whatever hits right after the stock market was safe. I completely agree on Krugman, although he is still pretty important when it comes to trade. I've been following Mitchell for awhile now and it was great when Bernie gave Stephanie Kelton a position as economic advisor. MMT is where we should be going, do you agree? (And what's up with all the academics out of Australia that are MMT-ers? The economics that's taught in America is embarrassingly bad.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Pretty sure we already have the underclass of unemployed. Noone likes to pay attention to them because they don't spend money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Unemployed and those who are employed at poverty wages too. It's hard to move up when you're working two part time min wage jobs that both want 24/7 availability to work 20 hours a week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Capitalism has killed off the village and whatever you want to define the family unit. Now you just have migrants that move to where capital requires them unrestrained geographically. It'd be cool if coffee houses were a little bigger and invited public dialogue and had people there from the government services to connect people with programs they could use, like food stamps, etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I completely agree on Krugman, although he is still pretty important when it comes to trade. Agreed, although I wouldn't die on the MMT hill if the roles were to reverse. It makes bold statements on a tiny research budget, and no government has yet tested which of those statements hold. But we should be going with whatever that respects the observable truths of economies, like fiat money being endogenous and created by private banks, and that all private sector spending money comes from public deficits, trade deficits, and credit. So likely something within the Post-Keynesian family, which MMT also belongs in. I guess economic schools of thinking in general are developed by people with something in common: e.g. The Chicago School, Austrian Economics. I'd ironically call MMT Australian Economics, but apparently their education is no different from everywhere else. If you check the backgrounds of those who saw 2007 coming, they tend to be people that studied something else entirely on undergrad and graduate levels and became macroeconomics buffs later. Keen studied math, Mitchell statistics, Michael Hudson studied arts, worked in banking and became a political economist focusing on the history of debt and so on. Bank economists were probably the best equipped people to see what was coming, since they had to know how credit actually works to work in banking. The private debt growth starting from the 1980's was so obvious that by the 90's you could tell by the graph that nothing like that had happened since right before Great Depression. The classically educated economists had just been trained not to look at that graph, because debt doesn't matter, as it's just banks acting as intermediaries for lending out people's savings, and the only way that would affect growth was by increasing the rate of circulation of money. I'm on a bit of a personal crusade against economists that piss away the years of my youth by simply deferring to authority against the evidence that has been mounting for 10 years now. I live in the Eurozone, and there will be something on my grave stone about monetarism and ordoliberalism. uncop fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:I fail to see how you're coming to these conclusions. The long-run Philips Curve shows that price levels eventually meet wage levels again and equalize at the natural rate of employment. If anything it actually leads to an increase in real wage levels over the long term. Can you explain what you're doing here? For one, what you're describing is 0 real wage growth - wages rising to meet price levels means real wages are equal to what they were before the inflation. For another, the Phillips Curve doesn't apply to this problem. My logic is pretty simple. 1. Protectionism decreases competition in the car industry. 2. Decreased competition raises the real price of cars. At whatever price level, cars are going to consume a relatively larger share of peoples' income. 3. Profit margins (probably sales too, but maybe not, it depends) in the auto industry grow somewhat, but sales in unconnected industries decline somewhat. If you're employed in or around the auto industry it might be somewhat better for you (or not, it depends) but if you're not, it's going to be worse. 4. Net net it's a transfer of welfare from the rest of the economy to the auto industry, at the expense of american consumers and non-auto industries. Electric Owl posted:Also, saying that this type of policy would do anything to transfer wealth from all Americans to Americans connected to the car industry, is again, the point. The 1% pay for half of what the US gov't receives in income tax, so gently caress em. The point is that protectionist policy would do wonders in shrinking the wealth gap. LOL. It would make most people poorer in real terms, but the rich (who own the domestic means of production, and benefit from less competition and the ability to raise prices) would make out much better than the poor (who own very little, and get to pay higher real prices regardless of the nominal wage level). Overall everyone's standard of living would get somewhat worse. Electric Owl posted:I agree on the trade wars point tho, but trade wars aren't necessarily inevitable and more often than not they're lose-lose. That's all game theory and I suppose with the right diplomatic channels you could greatly reduce the chances of that sort of stuff happening. Yes, that's the point. =( Everyone's lives become shittier. If you think closing American markets would NOT result in retaliation then I have to say that seems pretty naive. The idea that all markets must be open except for America's seems like something that can only be achieved by gunboat diplomacy. Electric Owl posted:EDIT: Also for all of you making GBS threads on Economics academia, I feel your pain. But that's not to say that some portions of the economics community (albeit not the mainstream community) recognize its faults and are trying to develop a pluralistic economics more grounded in the real-world than abstract models. You'd be glad to hear that this field of economics calls itself "Post-Autistic Economics" TBH mainstream economics is mostly right and alternative research programs are pretty LOL. It's at the intersection of economics and politics that things go off the rails.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:the Phillips Curve doesn't apply to this problem. How doesn't it? While what you're claiming what will happen will indeed happen (prices increase and real wages decrease) the Philips Curve goes to show that real-wages would only decrease in the short-run and not the long-run. Basically, because the natural level of unemployment decreases (because that's the point of this type of policy in the first place) workers are given more leverage in negotiating their wages and in effect get paid higher wages. This isn't only done by people working in the car industry, but applies on the macro-level because other firms would have to start to compete for the same pool of workers. Add to that the fact that consumer spending necessarily increases and so while there are some growing pains, everybody [read: 99% of everybody]ends up better off in the long run. Which brings me to: wateroverfire posted:the rich (who own the domestic means of production, and benefit from less competition and the ability to raise prices) would make out much better than the poor (who own very little, and get to pay higher real prices regardless of the nominal wage level) This is an absurd statement. Why do you think the elite pushed for Free Trade if they stood to make more money from protectionist policy??? The marginal costs associated with the protected firm are high (expensive labour / regulations you all of a sudden can't ignore like u could in the 3rd-world etc. etc.) and therefore drastically cut the firms profit margins. Anyways, the type of protectionist policy advocated under New Trade Theory are a lot less intrusive than the type of protectionist policy I think you think I mean. It tries to focus on industries up until points where they reach sufficient internal economies of scale to compete globally because those same up and coming firms face insurmountable barriers to entry under a globalist paradigm. Its the difference between kicking your kid out in street the moment he's born and raising him up until he's 18. wateroverfire posted:TBH mainstream economics is mostly right and alternative research programs are pretty LOL. It's at the intersection of economics and politics that things go off the rails. Hahahahahaaaaa...no. Edward S. Herman (The "Manufacturing Consent" guy) wrote a great paper on Institutionalized Bias in Economics I recommend u read if u have access to journals. Basically, the "experts" who espouse particular types of views are legitimized by the institutions mostly controlled by pro-business elites. I went to school in economics (albeit only an undergraduate major) and can tell u that there's a very prevalent bias towards libertarian policy that just so happen to align beautifully with elite interests. EDIT: Not to mention economics as it stands is completely myopic and obsessed with growth. Only very recently have economists started to consider that maybe the environmental decay caused by unrelenting industry is maybe the result of market failure. There's like this weird double think where those same economists who advocate free-trade are obliquely aware of externalities, but still push models that pretend they don't exist. almost there fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:How doesn't it? While what you're claiming what will happen will indeed happen (prices increase and real wages decrease) the Philips Curve goes to show that real-wages would only decrease in the short-run and not the long-run. Basically, because unemployment decreases (because that's the point of this type of policy in the first place) workers are given more leverage in negotiating their wages and in effect get paid higher wages. This isn't only done by people working in the car industry, but applies on the macro-level because other firms would have to start to compete for the same pool of workers. Add to that the fact that consumer spending necessarily increases and so while there are some growing pains, everybody ends up better off in the long run. Dude, this is not right. First and most basically, consumer spending does *not* necessarily increase. How do you get to that conclusion? People don't have more money in their pockets just because some prices have gone up. Instead, people shift consumption from some things to other things and otherwise economize, and that is the pinch that pushes them to seek higher wages. Increased demand for labor may give workers more bargaining power but only in the sectors that are seeing increased spending, and that is offset to some extent by rising prices. Businesses in sectors that are flat or contracting (because consumer spending is shifting) are not going to have an incentive to add labor and might shed jobs instead. On the macro level, protected industries are less productive at turning inputs into outputs (otherwise the protectionist measures were pointless because domestic producers would be dominating anyway) so consumers need to pay more to get back the same and items from those industries consume a larger share of real wages regardless of the price level. Real wage decreases would wash out if the economy were equally productive before and after the protectionist measures but if the economy is LESS productive, which it will be or else it didn't need protection, people in aggregate will have less buying power no matter what the wage level stabalizes at. Electric Owl posted:This is an absurd statement. Why do you think the elite pushed for Free Trade if they stood to make more money from protectionist policy??? The marginal costs associated with the protected firm are high (expensive labour / regulations you all of a sudden can't ignore like u could in the 3rd-world etc. etc.) and therefore drastically cut the firms profit margins. Anyways, the type of protectionist policy advocated under New Trade Theory are a lot less intrusive than the type of protectionist policy I think you think I mean. It tries to focus on industries up until points where they reach sufficient internal economies of scale to compete globally because those same up and coming firms face insurmountable barriers to entry under a globalist paradigm. Its the difference between kicking your kid out in street the moment he's born and raising him up until he's 18. If you're talking about nurturing nacient industries or companies until they're competitive enough to export then yeah, that can work or fail, depending. There are numerous examples of both. South Korea for instance did it successfully with its car industry while Chile by contrast failed hilariously with its own. It's sort of like any other investment - if you succeed it pays off and if it doesn't you fall behind. The USA, Chile, (that I know of) and many other countries do this through various programs already. It's more like state venture capitalism than protectionism, I think. When I hear "protectionism" it evokes for me tariffs and quotas designed to protect domestic industry. Electric Owl posted:This is an absurd statement. Why do you think the elite pushed for Free Trade if they stood to make more money from protectionist policy??? I wanted to talk about this specifically because it's NOT absurd. First...there are many elites with competing interests. Some want access to international markets to export (while being protected domestically). Some want to produce abroad and import into the states. Some are producing domestically to sell domestically. There are also elites in other countries who want essentially the same things. They're all participating in a political process. Those are the business elites. Government elites recognize that there are gains to trade - comparative advantage is a real thing. Second...companies are just pass-throughs converting inputs to outputs. They are going to exist (maybe not the exact same companies - some will come and go - but as a group) and make money no matter what. If you impose measures on them that increase their costs, then over the long term they will raise their prices and keep making money. Or some will, and others will go out of business. To the consumer it's about the same. If you impose measures that dampen competition, the companies that are left will increase their margins. Businesses adjust and the consumer pays. That's just how it is. It's not that businesses are all better off under free trade - some are, some aren't - it's that they will adjust to whatever and the owners of those businesses will still be richer and suffer less than the people who merely work, even if in real terms everyone is poorer. That, also, is just how it is. Electric Owl posted:Hahahahahaaaaa...no. Edward S. Herman wrote a great paper on Institutionalized Bias in Economics I recommend u read if u have access to journals. Basically, the "experts" who espouse particular types of views are legitimized by the institutions mostly controlled by pro-business elites. I went to school in economics (albeit only an undergraduate major) and can tell u that there's a very prevalent bias towards libertarian policy that just so happen to align beautifully with elite interests. I also went to school in Economics and took a Masters, though probably longer ago then you. =) I think you're being unfair in characterizing the whole profession. Academic economists are very well aware of externalities, the limits of models, the foibles of trade, and etc. Environmental econ is not really a new thing - it wasn't even when I was in school. Industrial Organization is basically the study of how markets depart from competitive models. The New Institutional school has been around awhile. If you talk to academics in an academic context they are much more humble and nuanced than like...Krugman and Mankiw in their blog posts. Also, it helps not to be an undergrad while you're doing that because professors are going to be condescending af and dumb things down no matter how smart or knowledgable you think you are (source: I was an undergrad and I was terrible) because you're neither of those things at that stage even if you're bright. Like I said last post, I think it's really at the intersection of economics and politics that things start to go off the rails because while there is some interest in theory, there is a lot more interest in pushing agendas and what gets done may only passingly resemble anything serious economists would recommend. Like...the neoliberal agenda is supposed to be free trade and pro-business measures paired with redistribution to compensate the losers but policy makers mostly don't get around to the second part. Also, prominent public economists are nurturing their personal brands so they're often going to make statements and take positions that are more about relating to their audiences than being perfectly correct and nuanced. Don't judge the whole profession by its loudest members. edit: Are you talking about the 1982 paper? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016344378200400307 ^That one? http://scholar.google.cl/scholar_ur...DloQgAMIHigAMAA Google scholar is pretty badass. Finished article. Agree with Edwards' general point. LOL if that article isn't "SA in 1982" AF, though. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
There's a difference between a Masters and a BA in Econ - the BA is pretty much just neoliberal/libertarian indoctrination
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Like...the neoliberal agenda is supposed to be free trade and pro-business measures paired with redistribution to compensate the losers but policy makers mostly don't get around to the second part. no not really, the stuff about 'protecting the losers' was always a fig leaf wheeled out in panic when the public starts to complain too much, whether in the early 90s or today. there was not then and is not now actual political will to do anything like that, not least because it's basically impossible to predict who the losers will actually be, and the long-term loss of quality employment in general means many of the newly-unemployed will never find work of similar quality to that which they lost icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:no not really, the stuff about 'protecting the losers' was always a fig leaf wheeled out in panic when the public starts to complain too much, whether in the early 90s or today. there was not then and is not now actual political will to do anything like that, not least because it's basically impossible to predict who the losers will actually be, and the long-term loss of quality employment in general means many of the newly-unemployed will never find work of similar quality to that which they lost Yeah. There's a big difference between the academic project and the policy implementation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
I think you folks might get a chuckle of this on the front page of CNN Money: Americans have become lazy and it's hurting the economy quote:All of this is causing the U.S. to stagnate economically and politically, Cowen says in his new book: "The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream." Growth is far slower than it was in the 1960s, 70s and 80s and productivity is way down, despite everyone claiming they are working so hard. quote:"Tech's great. It's fun. I've got four Amazon packages outside my door. But we have a problem with this precisely because it's enjoyable and comfortable," he says. "All this tech innovation encourages leisure and staying at home." quote:"Immigrants are the greatest risk takers of all. They are the least complacent class," he says. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/12/news/economy/us-economy-big-problem-tyler-cowen/index.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
It's kinda true about immigrants though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:UBI isn't actually a downward wealth transfer. Keep in mind that companies that don't pay their employees enough to live enough on are really the largest beneficiaries of most social services and a UBI isn't going to be any different, especially since anyone who would strictly benefit from it is going to be too poor to do anything other than shove the money right back into the economy. It's politically difficult (probably impossible), but it's not going to massively shake up society. People at the lower end will still work, they'll just do it for a pittance now since the majority of their income will come from the government. The people who don't work are going to pay all that money back into the system as consumers too. The money moves around, but the wealth is still going up. None of this makes any sense. Of course its a wealth transfer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:and productivity is way down, despite everyone claiming they are working so hard Mmmmmhmmm...  shrike82 posted:It's kinda true about immigrants though. Yes, constantly being a heartbeat away from abject poverty/deportation will do that to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:None of this makes any sense. Of course its a wealth transfer. It's not a net downward transfer of wealth unless we're talking about a very generous UBI or coupling it with a massive expansion of worker protections and government services. Actually moving wealth down in a way that "sticks" requires something well beyond a subsistence level basic income, otherwise you're only changing where the check comes from for very low income people. readingatwork posted:Yes, constantly being a heartbeat away from abject poverty/deportation will do that to you. The article is poo poo, but immigrants really are way less risk averse than Americans and the problem of declining entrepreneurship is something that's been noted in a lot of places. We've reached a point where most Americans don't feel financially secure enough to take risks and that's probably bad for the economy in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:37
|
|