4 ms·

Interesting that all economists seem to be pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights. You would almost think that most economists worked at banks or for univer

Interesting that all economists seem to be pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights. You would almost think that most economists worked at banks or for university business schools. In other research naval officers believe in a larger navy with lots of ships

astine 16y ago
You might think that economistshold pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights biases. Or you might think that the more easily demonstrated principles of economics hold pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights biases. Given my limited studies of history and economics, I'd suggest the later.
- scrod 16y ago
  If only we could discover a series of rules that would explain how perfectly self-interested robots behaved in a fictional market with no government/community interference in business on behalf of workers, where capital could be employed as a wealth-yielding instrument purely in and of itself, and where property gained from the proceeds of such was protected by the threat of violence. Surely then we could use those fundamental rules to help us predict how an ideal society should function. And I say ideal because clearly my preferred set of premises were definitely not chosen as a convenient rationalization for maintaining a pre-existing social structure that enabled the effective subjugation of most of society by a minority owner class.
dstorrs 16y ago
Yep, many economists do work for those institutions. And yep, all of them have /some/ particular axe to grind (everyone does -- I do, you do, etc). That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct. - Businesses are, in fact, what generates most of the wealth and innovation in a country - Taxes, whether personal or corporate, are not economically efficient. Government can be compared to an electrical grid -- the money comes in one place, flows out somewhere else, and there are line losses on the way. (Government overhead, wastage, etc) - As to workers' rights: any society represents a particular set of choices about production needs and social needs. Sometimes those needs are cooperative, sometimes orthogonal, and sometimes they are in opposition. When "workers' rights" means "give us the money and the time to innovate and consume outside of work", it's good for society. When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society.
- kiujhgbnj 16y ago
  But it does suggest that economics is just politics by another name. A survey of doctors would presumably agree on the function of an organ, a survey of hospital administrators might also agree on the need to cut treatment costs - this doesn't mean the opinions are equally accurate.
  - mdda 16y ago
    The labelling that you've chosen "pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights" is politics itself. The economists are more accurately characterized by 'anti-distortion'. The amount of distortion that should be accepted (for instance, to protect the disabled) is a matter of politics, but the article only addresses consensus issues.
    - kiujhgbnj 16y ago
      True, but the article implies that "economists all agree on these things, economists are experts - therefore these things are correct" But the same responses would come from US politicians of both types - would Swedish or French economists have the same views?
- scrod 16y ago
  >When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society. You've somehow managed to bring two logical fallacies in the same sentence — the straw man and the false dichotomy. No one genuinely struggling for the rights of workers ever advocates for either of those ways, and those outcomes aren't by any means the only possible alternatives. The purpose of unions has always been to bargain collectively in situations where individual actions alone would result in a greater detriment to each worker. A corporation is by nature this same mechanism applied in the market, so which side you prefer — the worker or the owner — is fundamentally one of politics in the end.
  - dstorrs 16y ago
dkarl 16y ago
Economists pursue productivity single-mindedly and forget that their freedom to think about productivity and nothing else is based on the assumption that certain moral abuses are outlawed. Only the most deluded ideologue really thinks that economic efficiency just happens to coincide with human moral values. Sure, if you bring up eight-year-olds working in coal mines, a few people will say, "But that must have been caused by government interference, because eight-year-olds working in coal mines is really quite economically suboptimal! I can tell it's economically suboptimal because thinking about it makes me feel bad!" But they are in the minority. Most economists take for granted that economic productivity should be pursued only in a context in which certain moral wrongs are outlawed. I pointed out in an earlier thread that the sales department will agree with you that systems reliability affects the bottom line, but when it comes to setting priorities, they'll fight tooth and nail to get all engineering resources dedicated to new products and features, and zero dedicated to reliability and infrastructure. It's the same with economists: they agree in principle that there should be laws enforcing basic human decency, but when push comes to shove they can't bring themselves to subordinate economic considerations. It's garden-variety déformation professionnelle. They have a hard time accepting that the value they dedicate their professional lives to is occasionally in conflict with something higher.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

astine 16y ago

You might think that economistshold pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights biases. Or you might think that the more easily demonstrated principles of economics hold pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights biases. Given my limited studies of history and economics, I'd suggest the later.

scrod 16y ago
If only we could discover a series of rules that would explain how perfectly self-interested robots behaved in a fictional market with no government/community interference in business on behalf of workers, where capital could be employed as a wealth-yielding instrument purely in and of itself, and where property gained from the proceeds of such was protected by the threat of violence. Surely then we could use those fundamental rules to help us predict how an ideal society should function. And I say ideal because clearly my preferred set of premises were definitely not chosen as a convenient rationalization for maintaining a pre-existing social structure that enabled the effective subjugation of most of society by a minority owner class.

dstorrs 16y ago

Yep, many economists do work for those institutions. And yep, all of them have /some/ particular axe to grind (everyone does -- I do, you do, etc). That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct. - Businesses are, in fact, what generates most of the wealth and innovation in a country - Taxes, whether personal or corporate, are not economically efficient. Government can be compared to an electrical grid -- the money comes in one place, flows out somewhere else, and there are line losses on the way. (Government overhead, wastage, etc) - As to workers' rights: any society represents a particular set of choices about production needs and social needs. Sometimes those needs are cooperative, sometimes orthogonal, and sometimes they are in opposition. When "workers' rights" means "give us the money and the time to innovate and consume outside of work", it's good for society. When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society.

kiujhgbnj 16y ago
But it does suggest that economics is just politics by another name. A survey of doctors would presumably agree on the function of an organ, a survey of hospital administrators might also agree on the need to cut treatment costs - this doesn't mean the opinions are equally accurate.
- mdda 16y ago
  The labelling that you've chosen "pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights" is politics itself. The economists are more accurately characterized by 'anti-distortion'. The amount of distortion that should be accepted (for instance, to protect the disabled) is a matter of politics, but the article only addresses consensus issues.
  - kiujhgbnj 16y ago
    True, but the article implies that "economists all agree on these things, economists are experts - therefore these things are correct" But the same responses would come from US politicians of both types - would Swedish or French economists have the same views?
scrod 16y ago
>When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society. You've somehow managed to bring two logical fallacies in the same sentence — the straw man and the false dichotomy. No one genuinely struggling for the rights of workers ever advocates for either of those ways, and those outcomes aren't by any means the only possible alternatives. The purpose of unions has always been to bargain collectively in situations where individual actions alone would result in a greater detriment to each worker. A corporation is by nature this same mechanism applied in the market, so which side you prefer — the worker or the owner — is fundamentally one of politics in the end.
- dstorrs 16y ago

dkarl 16y ago

Economists pursue productivity single-mindedly and forget that their freedom to think about productivity and nothing else is based on the assumption that certain moral abuses are outlawed. Only the most deluded ideologue really thinks that economic efficiency just happens to coincide with human moral values. Sure, if you bring up eight-year-olds working in coal mines, a few people will say, "But that must have been caused by government interference, because eight-year-olds working in coal mines is really quite economically suboptimal! I can tell it's economically suboptimal because thinking about it makes me feel bad!" But they are in the minority. Most economists take for granted that economic productivity should be pursued only in a context in which certain moral wrongs are outlawed. I pointed out in an earlier thread that the sales department will agree with you that systems reliability affects the bottom line, but when it comes to setting priorities, they'll fight tooth and nail to get all engineering resources dedicated to new products and features, and zero dedicated to reliability and infrastructure. It's the same with economists: they agree in principle that there should be laws enforcing basic human decency, but when push comes to shove they can't bring themselves to subordinate economic considerations. It's garden-variety déformation professionnelle. They have a hard time accepting that the value they dedicate their professional lives to is occasionally in conflict with something higher.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]