Post B05RCrVL30EcSDrmGu by worik@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by worik@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AzwtA3BZqrUYMFr1jE by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-05T22:12:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"The leader of the party of consumers and taxpayers argued against a measure to increase competition and lower prices because it might upset incumbent capital. In that single statement, the party’s modern priority was laid bare: protecting established businesses now trumps the creation of competitive markets for consumers. The 'consumer' in the party’s name has been forgotten entirely."#BryceEdwards, 2026https://archive.is/3POBJ#NZPolitics #AntiMonopoly #ACT
(DIR) Post #B05RCrVL30EcSDrmGu by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-06T22:09:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Bryce is carring the Rulling Class' water. Unwittingly I hopeHigh supermarket prices are a useful distraction. Some very small changes could be made by more competition, but SFAThe problem is low incomes. The Rulling Class wants you to see a supermarket duopoly as a bogeyman, and not campaign for higher incomesIn the brain dead, and deeply antisocial analysis of the New Zealand elites, higher incomes mean lower profits, so "look at the supermarkets "FTC
(DIR) Post #B05RCskGQzlgInrDAu by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-06T22:14:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik I disagree with every single part of this post, and I'm wondering why you're suddenly channeling Rimmer's corporatist reputation laundering.
(DIR) Post #B05RCthSst7hGPYUS0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-06T22:24:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@worik > The Rulling Class wants you to see a supermarket duopoly as a bogeyman, and not campaign for higher incomesI agree they don't want to give working people higher incomes. The ruling class are the ones who own the supermarkets and other oversized businesses operating as cartels. They don't want people criticising those cartels either, nor do they want criticism of the game of Monopoly they're playing with the property market.
(DIR) Post #B05RCuPmE8ZJTqHsWG by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-06T22:36:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)@worik > higher incomes mean lower profits... is Economics 101. A business has 3 main inputs; land (raw materials), labour, and capital. The output of a business is split up among the suppliers of each, accounted for as; expenses, wages/ salaries, and profits, respectively.For one to go up, one of the others has to go down. We have cartels making excessive profits because for decades they've been keeping wage and salary growth low. For incomes to rise, profits must return to Earth.
(DIR) Post #B05RCv8RY4IViNBY8m by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-07T04:22:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey that is what they think. It is the micro storeyIncreasing income I creases consumption and that I creases profits. It is a virtuous circle. But if you only count what is actually in your hands, you cannot see that
(DIR) Post #B05RCveLdRonJK71s0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-07T04:42:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@worik> Increasing income I creases consumption and that I creases profitsYou can't have your cake and eat it too. For wages/ salaries to go up, a higher proportion of what the economy produces has to go to workers. That means that the share taken as profit (return on capital) has to go down.Increasing income I creases consumption and that I creases *revenue*. But if more of that revenue is going into lifting workers' incomes, it can't also be lifting profits. Pick one.
(DIR) Post #B05RCwYMHCca72JlAm by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-07T04:46:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey the share that is profit deceases but the total goes up.Hmmm.... Wilson and Picket (IIRC) point out that relative wealth is what drives satisfaction
(DIR) Post #B05RCx0iZlJ3WzaPNQ by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-07T04:49:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> the share that is profit deceases but the total goes upSee the second post. This only holds if the growing businesses actually produces something of value, rather than being rent-seeking parasites like the supermarket duopoly, who produce nothing but higher food prices.
(DIR) Post #B05RCxbaMgnTNKpqqG by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-07T05:05:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Supermarkets paying more money mean workers buy more, better, products etcetera This is well known and understood in economics (look up efficency wages and Hery Ford's reasoning about paying his workers enough to buy his cars)The people in power seem to want to drive us to the point where there are no prosperous workers, only prosperous owners. That is probably hat they want but it os a fallacy (Rent seekers do not pay wages)
(DIR) Post #B05RCyIpltOLXT4OFk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-07T05:14:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> Rent seekers do not pay wagesThat's just observably wrong. It's about as arguable as claiming that gravity pulls things away from the ground. I can't see any point continuing a discussion if what I get back is obvious nonsense. Go read a book.Maybe Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom. Or Giblin and Doctorow's Chokepoint Capitalism. Or The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly. Or Debunking Economics by Steve Keen Or even David Graeber's Debt. Neoclassical economics is bunk.
(DIR) Post #B05RCyrZgjBHHDK8P2 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-07T20:09:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Please do not be rudeYou know this is one of my areas of expertise, decades of study."Rent seeker" meams an entity that gers passive income from no productive workThey do not pay wages by definition
(DIR) Post #B05RCzN7nQPyr45Ka0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-08T00:10:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> "Rent seeker" meams an entity that gers passive income from no productive work. They do not pay wages by definitionAs I said, that's observably wrong. Any company that outsources its production to third parties becomes an IP rentseeker. This includes all the big tech companies. Do they not pay wages or salaries?The supermarket duopoly extract rents from suppliers, owners-operators of stores, and customers. Do they not pay wages or salaries?Banks, gentailers, etc, etc, etc.
(DIR) Post #B05RCzyLZ2ByiVV3b6 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-08T01:00:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey "rent seeking" is a technical term
(DIR) Post #B05RD0W1Xp8AOxFx5c by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T01:14:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> "rent seeking" is a technical termSure is. In economics it means extracting income from owning things, rather than from using them to provide goods and services. Do we agree on this, because your line of argument suggests you have a very different definition in mind.
(DIR) Post #B05RD1JIacXurmJItU by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-09T02:04:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Of course.
(DIR) Post #B05RD2R8OyPMMMz4kK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T02:21:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> Of courseSo why do you argue, for example, that rent-seekers don't pay wages? Lots of companies that employ people make some or all of their income from owning things, not from productively deploying them.Eg Nike hasn't been a shoe-making company for decades. It makes money by licensing its name and logo to companies who do make shoes (see Naomi Klein's book No Logo). Most if not all of its income is rent. But it definitely pays wages and salaries.
(DIR) Post #B05RD2YDyc4yiMIjnU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-07T04:47:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)The deeper issue here, as Jane Kelsey pointed out a decade ago in The FIRE Economy, is that the biggest profits are being made in businesses that are parasitic on the productive economy. Her book title refers to Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, but to that I'd add "IP".There are huge companies now that produce nothing but brand images and "IP" monopolies (eg grApple). Getting richer by extracting huge rents from the smaller businesses and freelancers who actually make stuff.
(DIR) Post #B05pmUmFQED7I9Ie9o by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-08T01:17:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey > Neoclassical economics is bunk.No it is not. It is a model and it has its uses. Clearly not the whole story"Neoclassical economics is bunk." is hyperbole. There is too much ear blocking shouting in economics, we should not add to it!When I studied economics micro and rational expectations were the dogma. A candidate for bunk, surely?Economics is full of it, right and left
(DIR) Post #B05pmVzktUbr4Kcwqm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T01:19:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> It is a model and it has its usesThe core neoclassical assumptions and axioms are demonstrably wrong. The resulting theory may be useful in some arcane, academic context, but bears no relationship to measurable economic reality. Don't take my word for it, read Professor Steve Keen's book Debunking Economics.
(DIR) Post #B05pmX2H1cDaIQoTPk by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-09T02:04:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I know his work. He is wrong.
(DIR) Post #B05qdVAIi5vzqJpFrM by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-08T00:26:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> Supermarkets paying more money mean workers buy more, better, productsNot if prices go up as fast as wages, or faster. What needs to go up is the share of the wealth pie on any given day that workers can obtain with their incomes. Which necessarily means that either costs have to be cut so suppliers' share goes down, or the share going to profit goes down.The cake only grows if the productive economy grows, not the FIRE+IP economy that parasites off it.
(DIR) Post #B05qdW2tR7bSZdMqx6 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-08T00:59:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey > Not if prices go up as fast as wagesDuh!I mean real wages.Paying people more than they need for subsistance It is good for everybody Unless you suffer from having a smaller wealth gap....
(DIR) Post #B05qdX8FOhTpwWsdw8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T01:10:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@worik> Paying people more than they need for subsistance... which means profits go down as a share of total income. Especially where what news media are calling "excessive profits" are effectively monopoly rents on top of actual profit on providing goods and services.
(DIR) Post #B060ySq9Y4dAFs2Ika by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T02:12:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> I know his work. He is wrongUh-huh.
(DIR) Post #B066UkkazdvUqAeWRM by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T01:11:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)Take the example of a cafe that rent a building. They struggle to pay higher wages while covering costs, because a big chunk of their income pays rents, literally.If the monopoly power of big landlords is comprensively addressed, eg making it easier for businesses to own their own premises, then it's a lot easier to push pages up without bankrupting marginal businesses.
(DIR) Post #B069OIB2cDvSLXdJWy by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
2025-11-08T00:28:40.652000Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Supermarkets obviously provide a useful service for individuals. They are the place you go to buy all your groceries.Now you might not like the market structure, you might think that a duopoly allows for higher profit margins than they deserve, but being able to charge higher prices due to a Monopoly is not the same as rent seeking. If the duopoly was being maintained by establishing some sort of statutory exclusivity, such as making it unlawful to start a third supermarket business or lobbying to ensure only property they own is zoned for operating a supermarket, that arguably could be rent seeking behavior. The fact that no one else has started up a grocery store is likely a separate issue.
(DIR) Post #B069OJL0IfUNwjImhM by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T00:58:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sj_zero> being able to charge higher prices due to a Monopoly is not the same as rent seekingIt allows them to make money out of owning the majority of the supply chain. Well above what they used to be able to make when there were a dozen or so independent chains around the country, competing for both customers and suppliers. Making money from owning things = rent seeking, pure and simple.@worik
(DIR) Post #B06DYIgJzhUScjIA5Y by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-09T02:10:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey The biggest problem with economics IMO is using numbers in the models. They model fuzzy relationships, and numeric variables are misleading, they imply precision that does not existThe general relationship models in neo classical (say the Sollow Growth formular) are really very interesting and enormously usefulSteven Keen objects to the mathematics being low quality but he is falling into the trap of adding and multiplying I economics models, which goes beyond their usefulness
(DIR) Post #B06DYOndFQu3b8l5Jg by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-09T02:11:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey which is why I say he is wrong.The models will not tell you the inflation rate t tomorrow, but they will give a very good indication if it will be higher or lower.That is useful, it is used all the time, daily, effectively
(DIR) Post #B06JVyUQhAdn960Ie8 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-09T02:15:24Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @sj_zero > owning the majority of the supply chain. Well above what they used to be able to make when there were a dozen or so independent chains around the country, competing for both customers and suppliers. Making money from owning things = rent seeking, pure and simple.That is wrongYou are describing market power.Be careful, these are slippery concepts. But they are well worked out
(DIR) Post #B06JtetLDEpNJSwvHk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T02:34:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@worik> You are describing market powerThe supermarket duopoly has that, for sure. But ownership is also a factor, which makes rent a factor.@sj_zero
(DIR) Post #B06sFPtz1NAZdTnRE8 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-11-08T01:12:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey > The supermarket duopoly extract rents from suppliers, owners-operators of storesMonopoly profits and or market power are a different thing than remt
(DIR) Post #B07LZrMvVVEtHjR0Ua by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-09T02:16:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik> The general relationship models in neo classical... fail to match reality when applied to real world economic data, which is what Keen does.> he is falling into the trap of adding and multiplying I economics modelsThat's not what he does. He uses real world economic data, not purely theoretical models derived from ideological convenient 'first principles', as neoclassicals do. That's why he predicted the GFC years before, and not a single neoclassical did.