tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post8147041235892716071..comments2023-10-30T03:48:20.087-04:00Comments on anti-mankiw: give thanks to capitalismDaniel MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-34456997216217848562011-11-29T20:17:02.781-05:002011-11-29T20:17:02.781-05:00Edward this is a massive subject so I don't wa...Edward this is a massive subject so I don't want to be dismissive and simply refer you to a lot of reading, but I would recommend this:<br /><br />http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html#secc11<br /><br />and *strongly* recommend a book called 'The Skeptical Economist'.<br /><br />A simple point is that when you make an assumption about people's behaviour and build a system around them based on it, they will alter their behaviour over time.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-33651436156619876202011-11-29T14:54:09.357-05:002011-11-29T14:54:09.357-05:00Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the response. I think I am ...Hi Daniel,<br />Thanks for the response. I think I am starting to understand you more. I wasn't trying to be insulting before, but I do think we may be speaking past each other with word definitions. For example, when most economists speak of self-interested individuals, they do not mean selfish individuals. It is simply an acknowledgement that different people have different values and each person will live their life in accordance with their own values. One man may be obsessed with money while another devotes spending as much time as he can with his family, but both are self-interested in an economic sense. Also, when I say amoral, I do not mean valueless, I just mean that economists don’t judge different people’s values.<br />Let me throw out a couple definitions and you can tell me where you agree or disagree. That way we can argue with each other as oppose to past each other.<br />Capitalism: Private ownership of all goods and resources and strict adherence to contracts. <br />Socialism: Private ownership of consumer goods and government ownership of capital goods and resources.<br />Communism: Abolition of private property. <br />Marxism: The study of the process by which a society moves from capitalism to communism. <br />Let me throw out one way which I think we may agree as a starting point. The old classical economic models were all developed assuming commodity money (gold/silver standard usually). Those current models applied today in a fiat money world do not work. However, I also think that basic economic models in a world with a fixed money supply must be understood before any person can possibly comprehend fiat money, credit bubbles, asset bubbles, leverage, derivatives, etc.Edwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06899761220886572260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-92113251665361472082011-11-29T08:06:23.056-05:002011-11-29T08:06:23.056-05:00Edward it is a massive myth that economics is valu...Edward it is a massive myth that economics is value free - something that is based so fundamentally on a study of human behaviour can never be value free.<br /><br />There is, in fact, some evidence that learning economics makes people behave more selfishly, due to the study and praise of 'rational self maximisers'.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-82530408867428594272011-11-28T19:22:04.274-05:002011-11-28T19:22:04.274-05:00Thanks for your comment Edward, but I won't de...Thanks for your comment Edward, but I won't devote too much time to a response (since you think I don't know what economics is, I don't see us getting very far in an intellectual discussion):<br /><br />Economics is not like physics. One of the first things economists do when they think up a model is assume people behave a certain way. Fortunately, physicists don't have to do that because particles don't think. But people do, and that's an important difference.<br /><br />When we choose to assume that people are utility maximizers or self-interested, we are making a conscious choice that is not value-neutral. If we were to assume people had bounded rationality, or value collective action, or act based on love or altruism, those are all competing, political, assumptions about how people act. They reflect different value systems we might hold as economists or simply as citizens of the world.<br /><br />Furthermore, market principles are not value-neutral. Neoclassical economics originated in late-18th century political and natural philosophy in response to particular shifts in the political and economic climate of Western Europe. Markets are therefore not universal like how gravity is universal. Market centered views of society are historically contingent. Market centered views did not exist at one time, and now they do. But even now, they only somewhat exist -- since people are actively interested in demonstrating how other views compete with a market centered view, even in a capitalist economy.<br /><br />To wit: these people are still economists. They just aren't Mankiw's brand of economist.<br /><br />Thanks again for (trying) to foster a serious discussion.Daniel MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-81099231483916552332011-11-28T18:49:36.939-05:002011-11-28T18:49:36.939-05:00I find the purpose of this blog unclear. Perhaps ...I find the purpose of this blog unclear. Perhaps one of the writers could help me understand. Here is my problem with the objective of this blog: I don't think you know what economics is.<br /><br />Economics, like physics, is an amoral science. It attempts to discover what is. For example, in a basic science class, students may learn about the gravitational pull of the planet Earth and what happens to a rock when it is dropped from a cliff of 1000 feet. There are no moral implications in this lesson. Blaming Mankiw for his teachings of basic economics seems to me like blaming physicists when a crazy person murders someone by throwing them off a cliff. Should morals be discussed and taught in the classroom? Of course, but that is not what economics is about. <br /><br />When moving on to more advanced classes, a student may learn, using the laws of physics, how a plane flies, or how mankind reached the moon. But a student who will one day go on to build a rocket ship must have mastery of the basic laws of nature. An economist who tries to delve into the causes of a credit expansion and collapse must have mastery of the basic laws of human action. <br /><br />So please clarify for me, are you anti-basic economics? Are you pro-morals in the classroom, and if so, do you really want them in a basic econ class?Edwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06899761220886572260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-22655963737990709432011-11-28T12:34:45.741-05:002011-11-28T12:34:45.741-05:00you must be joking, there isn't any similarity...you must be joking, there isn't any similarity between these two movementsyaseminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02820644576483542243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-91776503922869949202011-11-28T02:52:49.233-05:002011-11-28T02:52:49.233-05:00we should connect with those guys!
http://www.dai...we should connect with those guys!<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066795/Muslim-students-walking-lectures-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.htmlTobihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10457553513840138583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-33406857362670328852011-11-25T13:32:24.459-05:002011-11-25T13:32:24.459-05:00Nice! I did indeed see that CT post by Quiggin. Bu...Nice! I did indeed see that CT post by Quiggin. But thanks for reminding me of my (most probably subconsciuos) blog-ancestors :)<br /><br />The thing which strikes me so much about this argument is how incredibly easy it is to make. At UMass one professor I TA for teaches this argument to his introductory micro students. And as a few commentors on that CT post point out, it's an old yarn once you get out of Western Developed Capitalism. <br /><br />The nuance which I like to add but which takes a bit more explanation is the point about labor being planned by capitalists. To do that correctly, you need to note not only that capitalist social relations <i>exist</i>, but also, that they are historically contingent.<br /><br />But in my opinion, theory of the firm ought to be a main topic in intro micro, so one would already have had that covered...<br /><br />Anyway, thanks again for the comment!Daniel MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-8056670904208001752011-11-25T10:05:08.008-05:002011-11-25T10:05:08.008-05:00This reminds me of a great post by John Quiggin wh...This reminds me of a great post by John Quiggin which you may or may not have seen:<br /><br />http://crookedtimber.org/2011/04/16/i-pencil-a-product-of-the-mixed-economy/<br /><br />Milton Friedman was in fantasy land when he held that pencil up to the screen in free to choose - everything produced in a 'market economy' is a product of both the public and private sectors.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.com