8 ms·

>>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 increasi

>>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
  >>which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. Marxist doctrine is sophomoric demagoguery, wrapped in pseudo-economic quackery, to rationalize totalitarianism. Every society where it has been put into practice has seen itself descend into hellish tyranny. It has led to governments killing tens of millions, and effectively enslaving hundreds of millions more. In more moderate doses, it has led to wage stagnation, the erosion of the manufacturing sector, and the breakdown of the two-parent family. It has created large monopolistic social welfare bureaucracies with rent-seeking stakeholders who are incentivized to promote an ideological narrative to justify their rent-seeking livelihoods. Anyway, while I don't feel particularly inclined to debate with someone who believes in an ideology every bit as damnable as fascism, and who resorts to mendacious defamation like accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism", I feel a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue going. However this isn't the best forum for it. Please create a post in Reddit or a similarly appropriate forum, provide me with the link, and we can resume this there.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Right, so you - unlike economists - don't distinguish between Marxist doctrine and Marxian economics. I even pointed quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics to show the distinction. But all you did was react to the word "Marx" as if I were a supporter of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. Because I don't. I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. As a reminder, South Africa banned the Communist Party because it was integrated. That part of leftist ideology is now mainstream, which is another example that just because something is part of leftist ideology - and Communist to boost - doesn't mean it's wrong.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      All I know is that Marxism is a sophomoric and demagogic economic ideology that incites violence and promotes ruinous economic policies. >>Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil. >>I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. But it's not.. How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?

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
>>which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. Marxist doctrine is sophomoric demagoguery, wrapped in pseudo-economic quackery, to rationalize totalitarianism. Every society where it has been put into practice has seen itself descend into hellish tyranny. It has led to governments killing tens of millions, and effectively enslaving hundreds of millions more. In more moderate doses, it has led to wage stagnation, the erosion of the manufacturing sector, and the breakdown of the two-parent family. It has created large monopolistic social welfare bureaucracies with rent-seeking stakeholders who are incentivized to promote an ideological narrative to justify their rent-seeking livelihoods. Anyway, while I don't feel particularly inclined to debate with someone who believes in an ideology every bit as damnable as fascism, and who resorts to mendacious defamation like accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism", I feel a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue going. However this isn't the best forum for it. Please create a post in Reddit or a similarly appropriate forum, provide me with the link, and we can resume this there.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Right, so you - unlike economists - don't distinguish between Marxist doctrine and Marxian economics. I even pointed quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics to show the distinction. But all you did was react to the word "Marx" as if I were a supporter of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. Because I don't. I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. As a reminder, South Africa banned the Communist Party because it was integrated. That part of leftist ideology is now mainstream, which is another example that just because something is part of leftist ideology - and Communist to boost - doesn't mean it's wrong.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    All I know is that Marxism is a sophomoric and demagogic economic ideology that incites violence and promotes ruinous economic policies. >>Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil. >>I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. But it's not.. How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?