• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think they have a better hit rate.
Which is not saying much.

Economics aren't a science no matter how much people have tried to turn them into one, and one should be extremely skeptical of any doctrine pretending to be "science" and using abstruse math to justify slashing social security and lowering taxes for the obscenely rich.
 
  • 7
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Which is not saying much.

Economics aren't a science no matter how much people have tried to turn them into one, and one should be extremely skeptical of any doctrine pretending to be "science" and using abstruse math to justify slashing social security and lowering taxes for the obscenely rich.
Economics is not inherently right wing. There is lots of people who use economics to support left wing policy. I am myself center left. Its just that the conservatives are louder about using outdated economic theories to justify a pro business agenda.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
But haven't most of Marx's predictions come false. Everyone's standard of living has risen drastically since 1850. Also, the majority of the lower class people is more interested in screwing minorities than bettering themselves. So, saying all struggle is class struggle is deifnitey false.

"Everyone's standard of living has risen drastically" yeah no shit, after 170 technology will advance so much that inevitably the standard of living will improve for everyone.
For the record, for billions of people in the world (including people in developed countries!) living standards are still shit. Unemployment is rampant, the United States are the richest country on Earth yet healthcare is still a luxury for its people. Since the rise of the neoliberalism in the 1980s wealth is getting even more ridiculously hoarded by a very few people: my parents' generation could easily buy a house, a nice car and other things that were considered basic, for our generation these things are a distant dream.

I understand that Econ 101 is a hell of a drug, but you need a reality check.
 
  • 9
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
"Everyone's standard of living has risen drastically" yeah no shit, after 170 technology will advance so much that inevitably the standard of living will improve for everyone.
For the record, for billions of people in the world (including people in developed countries!) living standards are still shit. Unemployment is rampant, the United States are the richest country on Earth yet healthcare is still a luxury for its people. Since the rise of the neoliberalism in the 1980s wealth is getting even more ridiculously hoarded by a very few people: my parents' generation could easily buy a house, a nice car and other things that were considered basic, for our generation these things are a distant dream.

I understand that Econ 101 is a hell of a drug, but you need a reality check.
The main reason for the increase in inequality in the West is globalization. The increasing development in places like China, Vietnam and India comes at the expense of middle class in the West.

At a global level inequality is actually decreasing. Its just that uneducated people in the West no longer reap us much benefits just for the good luck of being born in the West,
 
  • 5
  • 4Haha
  • 4
Reactions:
Here is a picture showing the decrease in global inequality.
1621784738333.png
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
But haven't most of Marx's predictions come false. Everyone's standard of living has risen drastically since 1850. Also, the majority of the lower class people is more interested in screwing minorities than bettering themselves. So, saying all struggle is class struggle is deifnitey false.
Marx didn't predict that living standards wouldn't rise. Quite the opposite, he thought capitalism would be a revolutionizing force in human society that would generate unimaginable wealth. He did predict that the wealth gap between the workers and the owners would also continue growing, which is exactly what has happened. More equitable periods have corresponded with unbelievably militant and highly organized labour movements.

The latter part of your comment is mostly false in my experience. I grant that there are more overt expressions of racism and bigotry among the uneducated proles, but that's surface level. You must also understand that we've lived through some 30 years of reaction during which the international workers movement has been beaten to smitherenes. Racism umong the lower classes is fallout from that.

Also, as others have pointed out, you don't have to be a Marxist to contradict neoliberal economics.
 
  • 11
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Marx didn't predict that living standards wouldn't rise. Quite the opposite, he thought capitalism would be a revolutionizing force in human society that would generate unimaginable wealth. He did predict that the wealth gap between the workers and the owners would also continue growing, which is exactly what has happened. More equitable periods have corresponded with unbelievably militant and highly organized labour movements.

The latter part of your comment is mostly false in my experience. I grant that there are more overt expressions of racism and bigotry among the uneducated proles, but that's surface level. You must also understand that we've lived through some 30 years of reaction during which the international workers movement has been beaten to smitherenes. Racism umong the lower classes is fallout from that.

Also, as others have pointed out, you don't have to be a Marxist to contradict neoliberal economics.
The main reason inequality has increased in the West is globalization. The upliftment of millions from poverty on Asia has come at the expense of the uneducated in the West.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Most economists now believe wages are alotted by the marginal theory of value. This is a pretty standard belief among economists despite pseudoscientific beliefs among a vocal minority. Vicky 2 unfortunately uses a labor theory of value which is probably easier to code. I believe that an easy way to correct is that the wages take into account how rare the pop type currently is. Rare pop types should get a larger cut of the wages.
In mainstream economics, wages being equal to their marginal productivity isn't an axiom, it only exists as a consequence of a competitive labor market and there lies the rub. In the free-for-all of the early industrial period is a competitive labor market a reasonable assumption? Maybe (worker wages were still shit though because of how much more important industrial machinery was to the production process). Is this a reasonanable assumption for the late 19th century economy based around large industrial trusts which dominate manufacturing employment and therefore have a lot of market power in hiring and maintaining workers? Not a chance in hell.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The main reason inequality has increased in the West is globalization. The upliftment of millions from poverty on Asia has come at the expense of the uneducated in the West.
Yes, bidding the labour of organized workers against impoverished people willing to work 80h a week for a fraction of the wages will come at the cost of the uneducated westerner. But if that's your explanation, you can't credit neoliberal economics with the formerly higher living standards of the Western workers. That honour would then go to the aforementioned worker's movement, which had strong Marxist leadershiip almost everywhere it made real gains.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Yes, bidding the labour of organized workers against impoverished people willing to work 80h a week for a fraction of the wages will come at the cost of the uneducated westerner. But if that's your explanation, you can't credit neoliberal economics with the formerly higher living standards of the Western workers. That honour would then go to the aforementioned worker's movement, which had strong Marxist leadershiip almost everywhere it made real gains.
I fully believe the labor movement provided a high standard of living in 70s. If you look at the graph, millions in Asia have been lifted out of poverty by globalization. I don't see how you can say these people in Asia are being taken advantage of. They are clearly being taken out of absolute poverty. Saying otherwise is just gaslighting to preserve white privilege..
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
The latter part of your comment is mostly false in my experience. I grant that there are more overt expressions of racism and bigotry among the uneducated proles, but that's surface level. You must also understand that we've lived through some 30 years of reaction during which the international workers movement has been beaten to smitherenes. Racism umong the lower classes is fallout from that.
Agreed. Du Bois' psychological wage concept really shows how racism among the working class could be used as a tool of repression/exploitation. This is also true in slavery-based nations, where poor whites - and even ex-slaves - would take part in this system and therefore not revolting against it.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just admit you hate the global poor.
Nah, just ignorant stubborn rich privileged neoliberals.

Why should an a person in the West be more deserving than someone in China.

No one is saying this. Living standards rising outside of the western world is a magnificent thing. But this shouldn't come to the expense of non-rich westerners especially when their poverty isn't being caused by people in developing countries bettering their lot but by their elites hoarding their wealth and moving capital where they can pay workers less.
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
You exposed Marxists to actual economic reality. Why would you do that. That's like feeding Gremlins after Midnight.
 
  • 5
  • 3Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.