7 ms·

There is no impartiality or diversity of different economics taught currently. The only economics taught in most universities is complete reference to capitalis

There is no impartiality or diversity of different economics taught currently. The only economics taught in most universities is complete reference to capitalism. I say this having a degree in economics and forgoing acceptance into a PhD program due to the current bias

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Economics is one of the most impartial academic fields. The deference to market principles is due to the empirical evidence showing they promote economic efficiency, and not bias. If anything, the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics. You now see more economists trying to rationalize minimum wage for example. I suspect bias is introduced as people dependent on union privileges create and promulgate ideological justifications for the laws that empower unions. This shapes the cultural mores of society, resulting in positions favorable to unions becoming perceived as morally superior.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Oh my. How strong is the evidence behind homo economicus? As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths. And, umm, "started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics"? May I introduce you to the field of Marxist economics? It's only about 150 years old. It's not like unions, and the effects of unions on economics, is anything new. Richard D. Wolff is likely the most vocal of American Marxist economists, with many videos on YouTube. Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions? Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment: > The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. > The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. > Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. > Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed > It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    >>Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Oh my. You're laughing at me while promoting Marxism.. Anyway, mainstream economics (which does not include Marxism) has increasingly become accepting to leftist ideas over the last few decades, which is part of a larger trend in academia, and in the Humanities and Social Sciences in particular, of moving increasingly to the left. >>As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths. People do follow rational behaviour models that incorporate iteration and bounded rationality. >>Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions? You can read up on rent-seeking on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, all union profit-seeking activity is rent-seeking. >>Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment: The NLRA takes the approach of appeasement toward violent strikers, in the form of legal codes that effectively rob employers of their private property by way of rules that usurp their control over it. I think it's reasonable to assume that absent the rent-seeking activity of unions in manipulating public opinion, the polity would enforce free market rules in governing labor practices.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      It's interesting that you use the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. What do you think it means? Because to me it sounds like you aren't distinguishing between politically Marxist and economically Marxian, when I was only referring to the latter. In case you hadn't noticed, the entire freaking country has been moving towards the left, including the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and LGBTQ rights. So, whoo-hoo - Harvard researchers no longer support scientific racism. Have you considered that academia might be accepting these ideas because they have stronger evidentiary support for them than the older ideas? As it stands, your comment reads as "it's from the left therefore it must be wrong." To to back to the reason I mentioned Marxism, I bought it up because you proposed that these 'leftist ideological biases' were somehow new to economics theory. The introduction of these ideas in economics started 150 years ago. I read the rent-seeking topic on Wikipedia, but it offered no insight into your declaration that "All union profit-seeking is rent-seeking". It is quite careful to say: > Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.[6] Profit-seeking in this sense is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is "profiteering" by using social institutions, such as the power of the state, to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth It distinguishes between profit-seeking and rent-seeking, but you do not appear to do so. Perhaps you should read the page? I have elsewhere pointed out how unions don't necessarily depend on the power of the state in order to leverage collective bargaining. I have looked for but failed to find a mention about unions on that page. So, please describe how all union activity is rent-seeking. Furthermore, the page says "In many market-driven economies, much of the competition for rents is legal, regardless of harm it may do to an economy." Are you trying to assert that all rent seeking should be illegal? Or only that union rent seeking should be illegal? Based in what you ended with, you're the sort of died-in-the-wool libertarian that capitalists love to have around. Are you one of the people who thinks that the Koch brothers aren't using their billions to manipulate public opinion against unions? If not, what does rational choice theory suggest is the reason for their funding of so many right-wing and libertarian organizations?

CryptoPunk 9y ago

Economics is one of the most impartial academic fields. The deference to market principles is due to the empirical evidence showing they promote economic efficiency, and not bias. If anything, the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics. You now see more economists trying to rationalize minimum wage for example. I suspect bias is introduced as people dependent on union privileges create and promulgate ideological justifications for the laws that empower unions. This shapes the cultural mores of society, resulting in positions favorable to unions becoming perceived as morally superior.

eesmith 9y ago
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Oh my. How strong is the evidence behind homo economicus? As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths. And, umm, "started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics"? May I introduce you to the field of Marxist economics? It's only about 150 years old. It's not like unions, and the effects of unions on economics, is anything new. Richard D. Wolff is likely the most vocal of American Marxist economists, with many videos on YouTube. Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions? Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment: > The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. > The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. > Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. > Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed > It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Oh my. You're laughing at me while promoting Marxism.. Anyway, mainstream economics (which does not include Marxism) has increasingly become accepting to leftist ideas over the last few decades, which is part of a larger trend in academia, and in the Humanities and Social Sciences in particular, of moving increasingly to the left. >>As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths. People do follow rational behaviour models that incorporate iteration and bounded rationality. >>Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions? You can read up on rent-seeking on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, all union profit-seeking activity is rent-seeking. >>Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment: The NLRA takes the approach of appeasement toward violent strikers, in the form of legal codes that effectively rob employers of their private property by way of rules that usurp their control over it. I think it's reasonable to assume that absent the rent-seeking activity of unions in manipulating public opinion, the polity would enforce free market rules in governing labor practices.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    It's interesting that you use the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. What do you think it means? Because to me it sounds like you aren't distinguishing between politically Marxist and economically Marxian, when I was only referring to the latter. In case you hadn't noticed, the entire freaking country has been moving towards the left, including the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and LGBTQ rights. So, whoo-hoo - Harvard researchers no longer support scientific racism. Have you considered that academia might be accepting these ideas because they have stronger evidentiary support for them than the older ideas? As it stands, your comment reads as "it's from the left therefore it must be wrong." To to back to the reason I mentioned Marxism, I bought it up because you proposed that these 'leftist ideological biases' were somehow new to economics theory. The introduction of these ideas in economics started 150 years ago. I read the rent-seeking topic on Wikipedia, but it offered no insight into your declaration that "All union profit-seeking is rent-seeking". It is quite careful to say: > Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.[6] Profit-seeking in this sense is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is "profiteering" by using social institutions, such as the power of the state, to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth It distinguishes between profit-seeking and rent-seeking, but you do not appear to do so. Perhaps you should read the page? I have elsewhere pointed out how unions don't necessarily depend on the power of the state in order to leverage collective bargaining. I have looked for but failed to find a mention about unions on that page. So, please describe how all union activity is rent-seeking. Furthermore, the page says "In many market-driven economies, much of the competition for rents is legal, regardless of harm it may do to an economy." Are you trying to assert that all rent seeking should be illegal? Or only that union rent seeking should be illegal? Based in what you ended with, you're the sort of died-in-the-wool libertarian that capitalists love to have around. Are you one of the people who thinks that the Koch brothers aren't using their billions to manipulate public opinion against unions? If not, what does rational choice theory suggest is the reason for their funding of so many right-wing and libertarian organizations?