4 ms·

>One of the most insidious ideas of our time Completely agree. I took a lot of business class in university about 20 years ago. undergrad in econ, accounting,

>One of the most insidious ideas of our time Completely agree. I took a lot of business class in university about 20 years ago. undergrad in econ, accounting, M.S. in finance, cpa etc. I'm kind of sickened now when I look back at that way things were taught in the sense that.. a companies sole purpose to maximize profits is like this "thing" that is under the table inherently factual. Sure it's said out loud, but never in any context of really "why" and just what profound effects it has on everyone when you make that vital assumption. Everything was presented in such an academic way that.. it makes sense in that context but there is so much more to the world. Economics everyone is taught of a supply & demand curve like it's some law of nature. It's literally based on greed! (which, ok yes you can easily say IS our nature.. but should it be?). If I'm able only able to produce 100 loafs of bread a day and there is demand for 200 a day.. economics say I should keep raising my prices until there is demand for exactly 100. That's called price gouging and ALWAYS hurts the people who can't afford it. See: any concert/sporting event these days. They push every single penny they can out of people and price the shit out of people who actually need a break the most. Anyway I'm just ranting here. But my point is the pure academics and the needs of the society are at great odds. I'm guessing things are a little better now, maybe? Kids probably question some of these "givens", at least enough to get others wondering. I mean shit not to mention kids these days must be feeling it ever WAY more with the simple costs of school, healthcare, rent, food etc.

rmellow 4y ago
> Economics everyone is taught of a supply & demand curve like it's some law of nature. It's literally based on greed! (which, ok yes you can easily say IS our nature.. but should it be?) That's the distinction of descriptivism vs prescriptivism. Both types of theories are important, but miscommunication about which one a theory is representing is a source of many unnecessary arguments. Agreed on the rest... Mainstream economic theory does not include externalities (including environmental) into the the price... Most likely because society still sucks at enforcing externalities into prices. More concretely: systematically gouging people who can't afford it is likely to create social issues, while at the same time generating profit for someone else in the exploitative chain. In an ideal world, that profit would be reduced to directly pay for social issues it causes. Of course, that's easier said than done in practice. There's no free lunch, so the bill goes to society to pay for somehow, either through increased taxes or lower standard of living for all of us. An example: say someone needs to go into debt to get basic education for their kids. The parent works more, spends less time with the kids. Kids are less likely to live up to their potential, and more likely to be involved later in life with criminality, drug use, homelessness. Meanwhile, a small group of people higher up in the chain that systematically gouges thousands like this family, enjoy a nice year end bonus, not for working extra hard or being particularly clever, but just because they've inserted themselves in this exploitative mechanism. Meanwhile, we all pay a little more tax to pay for remedial social programs and policing, to deal with those that were already vulnerable and further nudged into bad outcomes.

rmellow 4y ago

> Economics everyone is taught of a supply & demand curve like it's some law of nature. It's literally based on greed! (which, ok yes you can easily say IS our nature.. but should it be?) That's the distinction of descriptivism vs prescriptivism. Both types of theories are important, but miscommunication about which one a theory is representing is a source of many unnecessary arguments. Agreed on the rest... Mainstream economic theory does not include externalities (including environmental) into the the price... Most likely because society still sucks at enforcing externalities into prices. More concretely: systematically gouging people who can't afford it is likely to create social issues, while at the same time generating profit for someone else in the exploitative chain. In an ideal world, that profit would be reduced to directly pay for social issues it causes. Of course, that's easier said than done in practice. There's no free lunch, so the bill goes to society to pay for somehow, either through increased taxes or lower standard of living for all of us. An example: say someone needs to go into debt to get basic education for their kids. The parent works more, spends less time with the kids. Kids are less likely to live up to their potential, and more likely to be involved later in life with criminality, drug use, homelessness. Meanwhile, a small group of people higher up in the chain that systematically gouges thousands like this family, enjoy a nice year end bonus, not for working extra hard or being particularly clever, but just because they've inserted themselves in this exploitative mechanism. Meanwhile, we all pay a little more tax to pay for remedial social programs and policing, to deal with those that were already vulnerable and further nudged into bad outcomes.