Post ArkPJDDOaOYOLMLn8q by GuerillaOntologist@social.coop
(DIR) More posts by GuerillaOntologist@social.coop
(DIR) Post #ArkL7eg0GAG4Doxtxo by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-03-05T13:57:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
“economists” falsely presume a quantitative resource constraint rather than undesirable patterns of deployment and remuneration. under poor deployment and inequitable remuneration, greater public share can be welfare increasing, even when much must be spent on unconsumable war preparedness.
(DIR) Post #ArkNbQJIRB1yGHfODo by GuerillaOntologist@social.coop
2025-03-05T14:25:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity When I tried to make these kinds of arguments as an undergrad (though not in quite these terms) I was always told, "no interpersonal comparisons of utility," which meant in practice that it was impermissible to make any arguments about redistributive policies and social welfare, since Pareto Efficiency demands that no one be made worse off & any adjustments to current resource allocations would make at least one person worse off...so growth is the only answer...according to them.
(DIR) Post #ArkOGouvqzoAS50g8O by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-03-05T14:32:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GuerillaOntologist only growth is not an answer to that critique. not in the least. it’s a non sequitur, a diversion.
(DIR) Post #ArkOQbXWRikdrFj3Q0 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-03-05T14:34:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GuerillaOntologist ( there is no answer without positing a social welfare function, that is without copping to a ser of normative views. please read my thousands-words five-part series on the subject! https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5149.html )
(DIR) Post #ArkOiBc9Zg7AfGH8y0 by GuerillaOntologist@social.coop
2025-03-05T14:37:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Oh, I know (and have read a good bit of your writing), which is why getting a BA in econ was so painful for me. I'm sitting here trying to explain the basics of logic to my f'ing professors (except for my thesis advisor, thank gawd, who was a Marxian).Me: Wait, so you're saying that if we take $50 from Bill Gates and give it to a homeless guy on the street we can't say that overall welfare has increased?!?Them: Yes.
(DIR) Post #ArkOu11KmunDHch6Tw by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-03-05T14:39:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GuerillaOntologist you can be charitable and describe them as blinded by epistemological caution, or be more accurate and describe them as handmaidens for the ideology that conferred prestige upon their discipline.
(DIR) Post #ArkPJDDOaOYOLMLn8q by GuerillaOntologist@social.coop
2025-03-05T14:44:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity For the most part, I think my State Uni profs were just repeating what they had been taught - i.e. boilerplate neoclassical economics - without thinking too much about it. They genuinely thought that they were being "scientific" and would often tell me that "economics is a positive, not a normative, science. We talk about how things are, not how they should be." When I pointed out that that stance was itself a normative one, they were much confused.
(DIR) Post #ArkPds3QSMj6nOXPwu by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-03-05T14:48:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GuerillaOntologist if they ever showed you a graph of supply and demand shaded with producer and consumer surplus, they were making welfare claims and defying their so-called positive-not-normative stance.i agree that econ professors have typically been more snowed than cynical in their ideological blind spots.
(DIR) Post #ArkQ1nrhgP7IkmT0i0 by GuerillaOntologist@social.coop
2025-03-05T14:52:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Yeah, the other thing that stood out to me was their ability to hold two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time, eg "real wages are what counts, not nominal wages," "wages are sticky," and "the faculty senate just agreed to two years of pay freezes."Crazy thing was, with only one exception they were all more-or-less progressive Democrats.