# The Economics Department

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.

What is the prejudice against this topic? The National Debt, Trade and Globalism, Supply-and-Demand, Labor laws and Labor disputes, Taxes, etc. Our quality of life, welfare, living standard is largely dependent on how these are addressed, but the average American is apparently a crybaby who cannot stand to hear of it and cannot bear to critically judge the decisions being made (and preached but not debated) in high places, by speech-makers who mostly just pander to certain factions who aggressively solicit them, to the detriment of everyone else.

When I went to college the Economics classes were held mostly in the Social Science Bldg., so putting this here seems reasonable, for lack of a proper place being provided for it.

The extreme contempt for Economics, and mindlessness today among the idiots and crybabies and restless natives of America (and other countries also?) shows through in the following:
Perhaps this discussion would fit better under miscellaneous.

This is HATE, almost as bad as hate against a class or race, only in this case it's hate against a topic people can't bear to think about. At most, people only want to give it just enough time to focus on the particular class or race they hate, and slam that hated object -- immigrants, employers, Jews, greedy capitalist pigs, foreigners, landlords, sweatshop owners, scab laborers, etc. -- and then run away before the targeted scapegoat has a chance to even see what hit them.

I don't know if this is only a U.S.A. mental disease, or if it's worldwide. I've seen some programs on BBC (not many, but at least an occasional one), and possibly DW, where there's an intelligent debate/discussion on economics. Perhaps the hate-disease is bad in those countries too, but slightly less widespread than in the U.S.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
Shortage of Truck-drivers and other workers

There's a worldwide truck-driver shortage, and it's hurting us all, causing higher prices and empty shelves and delays in getting the stuff we need (want).

Since virtually everyone is a nationalist, even the globalists and internationalists who want at least their own nation to perform well, how can anyone fail to see the need to relax the immigration laws and work-visa laws in order to encourage more truck drivers?

This is textbook Economics 1A -- supply and demand and thus profit motive and increased supply and satisfaction of all consumers (the entire population). Who would not benefit from relieving this shortage? Why not do whatever it takes?

And yet idiots in power (e.g., in the UK) insist that the "employers must invest in the UK workforce."

Who are the assholes who make these decisions? Are they not assholes? How can anyone be so stupid and brain-dead about basic economics, and supply-and-demand? (No wonder Brexit is on life-support, with idiots like this in charge!)

In the United States thousands of migrants pile up at the border and are warehoused and heaped into "cages" or whatever, and just kept there for weeks and weeks, months and months. And then many are just sent back to where they came from.

Of course not all can be admitted, but those capable of driving can be. And also many others of working age to fill the thousands, even million of vacant jobs just sitting there empty because employers can't pay American citizens high enough. Most of those "children" are really old enough to work, and also to train.

Even if it requires a few weeks of training, or months, this could be done, with private companies taking most of the steps necessary. Maybe some of the training could even be done in Mexico. There's no excuse for not getting thousands of those migrants into the training sessions and getting this need met. Plus there are many who already qualify and should be passed through immediately to where they are needed.

And of course All those crossing should be vaccinated as needed, which ought not be difficult. It's only a tiny few nutcases who are paranoid about being vaccinated.

Why can't we take in the immigrant workers we need?

There's only one explanation why we're not getting these immigrant workers into the economy where we need them.

Crybaby American labor / wage-earners hate the newcomers who would compete and might depress wage levels.

Why is Biden dragging his feet and not allowing more immigrant workers in? Or, why is he doing it very secretly in some cases, to meet some of the need, but also turning most of them back? He is pandering to his base of wage-earner crybabies, as did Trump before him, who think the workers hate the newcomers threatening to "steal" their jobs or drive down their wage level.

What other explanation can there be for the vast amount of unfilled jobs -- not only truck-drivers, but others, low- and high-paying, skilled and unskilled -- jobs which could easily be filled, including trainees registered and prepared for placement, if only the crybabies would stop their whining for once and recognize what's good for the whole nation, instead of always throwing a tantrum to demand their instant-gratification for the moment.

impact of immigration on wage levels

There have been studies done which claim immigrant workers have no negative impact on wage levels in the domestic economy. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-these-2-nobel-winners-are-challenging-popular-economics

Of course there may be no such wage-level impact in some cases, where there are serious worker shortages.

But there are 2 things wrong with these studies:

They are at least partly wrong -- as any serious economist knows -- because in some particular cases a new influx of job-seekers does have downward impact on wage levels (because of supply-and-demand), even if this is not universal or widespread throughout the economy. But further,

Why must we always obsess on wage level?

More importantly, a lower wage level is not necessarily bad for the economy, in this or that market. The prices of anything, including labor, need to go up or down depending on the conditions in that market. To make a religion out of high wages per se is asinine and idiotic. The wage level, like any other price, must be allowed to fluctuate according to the market supply-and-demand. To insist that this is necessarily bad for the economy is just

Crybaby Economics.

And the above 2 Nobel Prize economists, and others like them, are just pandering to crybabies, possibly even lying to them for the purpose of political correctness, pretending that anything causing lower wages has to be harmful for the economy. Why does this constant pandering to wage-earner crybabies have to continue? Why is this pandering made virtually a requirement in order to get published and gain applause or recognition or gold stars?

Will this country finally grow up and stop being a nation of crybabies?

If you want higher wages, take advantage of the current labor shortage in some areas, or in some job types, and make yourself valuable for a change, finding a place where your value would be higher, instead of just throwing a tantrum and bashing employers and making a fuss and demanding crybaby solutions like minimum wage increases for the uncompetitive.

And stop forcing scholars, like these hapless Nobel Prize winners, to keep pandering to the wage-earner class like a sacred cow, worshiping this like some kind of sacred hallowed ground needing to be preserved at all cost, like the rainforest, or like Lenin's pickled body, or like Ramses II's mummy, to be preserved forever. "The Worker" is not a sacred object to be preserved, but is expendable like everything else.

The only Forever is the Consumer, or serving the Consumer -- the whole population -- and the wage-earners and all other producers are only a means to that end.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.
Any discussion of economics on the web generally degenerates into politics. This would make the topic more appropriate to the political discussion forum.... as your above posts demonstrate.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
Social Sciences seems a good forum to discuss Economics. Although much economics involves a lot of math, it is NOT a hard science like physics or chemistry. It is an ever-changing study of human society. (But skepticalbip is right: OP's questions are more about Politics than Economics. On the other hand, many discussions in Politics mutate into discussions of Economics.)

The U.K. shortage of lorry drivers is due in large measure to Brexit. I read that there are long delays at the border, and that restrictions mean some lorries return to the continent empty. (I read about one Polish lorry driver who had lived in Britain for several years, applied to return, had application accepted, but was arrested at the airport when he flew into Britain. Deportation was ordered. His lawyer convinced the government it had erred, but the deportation order, once issued, could not be rescinded.)

In the relatively near future, perhaps, self-driving trucks will "solve" the truck-driver shortage.

On the question of possible decline in wages for low-skilled jobs, I do not think employers should be responsible for providing a "living wage." Instead there should be a safety-net giving all Americans, employed or not, access to healthcare, childcare, and basic necessities.

#### southernhybrid

##### Contributor
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.

What is the prejudice against this topic? The National Debt, Trade and Globalism, Supply-and-Demand, Labor laws and Labor disputes, Taxes, etc. Our quality of life, welfare, living standard is largely dependent on how these are addressed, but the average American is apparently a crybaby who cannot stand to hear of it and cannot bear to critically judge the decisions being made (and preached but not debated) in high places, by speech-makers who mostly just pander to certain factions who aggressively solicit them, to the detriment of everyone else.

When I went to college the Economics classes were held mostly in the Social Science Bldg., so putting this here seems reasonable, for lack of a proper place being provided for it.

The extreme contempt for Economics, and mindlessness today among the idiots and crybabies and restless natives of America (and other countries also?) shows through in the following:
Perhaps this discussion would fit better under miscellaneous.

This is HATE, almost as bad as hate against a class or race, only in this case it's hate against a topic people can't bear to think about. At most, people only want to give it just enough time to focus on the particular class or race they hate, and slam that hated object -- immigrants, employers, Jews, greedy capitalist pigs, foreigners, landlords, sweatshop owners, scab laborers, etc. -- and then run away before the targeted scapegoat has a chance to even see what hit them.

I don't know if this is only a U.S.A. mental disease, or if it's worldwide. I've seen some programs on BBC (not many, but at least an occasional one), and possibly DW, where there's an intelligent debate/discussion on economics. Perhaps the hate-disease is bad in those countries too, but slightly less widespread than in the U.S.

No. Hate had nothing to do with that comment. It was just a suggestion. I thought it might get more attention in misc. So lighten up! I love discussing economics and it's true that I didn't agree with some of what you said in that other thread, but it wasn't personal and had nothing to do with hate. Maybe when I have time, I'll join you in this discussion.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
"Economics" is a new name for an old subject. Until the 20th century, the field was generally called "political economy".

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
There has always been a demand for long haul truck drivers. Trucking companies have free training programs to get licensed.

Here in Seattle and nationally there is a labor shortage. People are opting to stay on extended benefits rather than go back to work. From the reporting that is affecting transportation and drivers.

Here in Seattle businesses that are reopening can not find applicants for work.

The flip side of supply and demand is human inertia, without a motivation to work many will not.

Welding has always had an unfilled demand and can pay 6 figure incomes with experience and certifications .

Shortages of goods is the result of multiple factors, mainly lack of supply mostly back in China. There is also a lack of the standard shipping containers for ships, also made mostly in China.

Containers go from ships directly to mounting on trucks and rail cars.

From our roof deck we can watch the cargo ships in the bay in Seattle.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
There is no such thing as "economics".

There is the economics of the present day US with it's totality of laws and features. With it's top down structures of power and control and domination. With it's corrupted government.

And there would be the economics of a more free economy controlled by workers, not masters, if one existed.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no such thing as "economics".

There is the economics of the present day US with it's totality of laws and features. With it's top down structures of power and control and domination. With it's corrupted government.

And there would be the economics of a more free economy controlled by workers, not masters, if one existed.

Just because you don't like the economic system doesn't mean there's no economics.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The USA is not only NOT 'the world'; But it's also not typical of 'the world', nor of the developed world, in both of which categories it's an extreme outlier.

There's also no world shortage of truck drivers. There's a shortage of truck drivers and of many other workers in the UK, as a direct and highly predictable result of Brexit, which has taken a sledgehammer to the delicate balance of the UK economy by driving out of the country a large fraction of the workforce, mostly from specific sectors wherein UK citizens were (and remain) disinclined to participate.

In short, UK consumers cannot afford to pay enough to cover sharply higher wages for truck drivers, and British workers aren't prepared to drive trucks without a sharp increase in wages.

This isn't really an economic issue, it's political and cultural. Human beings are not interchangeable parts in an economic machine who will do whatever is necessary to earn money. A lot of Americans are, but that's a cultural idiosyncrasy, not a law of nature.

Attempting to define economic rules or laws, based on the unstated (and probably unconscious) assumption that people generally behave like, and react like, Americans, is doomed to failure. Which is why large numbers of Americans, and almost everyone who is not an American, see US political economics as a pathetic joke, particularly in its crazy 'libertarian' form.

Almost every assumption underlying the opinions of the OP is both false, and (I strongly suspect) unconscious. Not only do you not know that you are wrong, you cannot imagine any other framework for thinking about economics even existing, other than as a strawman and bogeyman that could be used to scare children, but never implemented or seriously considered by a grownup.

It's no more possible to discuss economics (or politics) with a true beliving American Libertarian than it is to discuss them with a true believing North Korean communist.

Imposing twenty-first century American economic norms anywhere else in the world would swiftly lead to a bloody revolution against the wealthy; And the rest of the world has spent the last forty or fifty years watching America, and wondering why it hasn't happened.

TL;DR: Americanism, as an economic system, is weird, stupid, and (in the rest of the world) very obviously wrong. We don't need a specific forum to discuss it, and shouldn't consider adding one on the advice of someone who is only vaguely aware that this isn't a purely US discussion board.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Controlled by workers? Russian and Chinese communism tried that, both failed.

Russia morphed into an authoritarian kleptocracy and China is communist in name only. China morphed into a quasi free market economy. They identify as socialist these days.

In any economic system the same issues exist, how oo allocate labor, compensation, and what and how much gets produced. On the scale of the USA exactly how would the 'people' control the economy?

Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
Labor Theory of Value

Does the Labor Theory of Value make sense today? Did it ever?

What determines the value of anything that is bought and sold in the marketplace?

According to the Labor Theory of Value, it's the amount of labor involved in producing the commodity. Here's one version of the LTV:

A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallisation of social labour. The greatness of its value, or its relative value, depends upon the greater or less amount of that social substance contained in it; that is to say, on the relative mass of labour necessary for its production. The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the respective quantities or amounts of labour, worked up, realised, fixed in them. The correlative quantities of commodities which can be produced in the same time of labour are equal. Or the value of one commodity is to the value of another commodity as the quantity of labour fixed in the one is to the quantity of labour fixed in the other.

Karl Marx, Value, Price, and Profit, Chapter VI

Or there are other versions of the LTV which say essentially the same thing. E.g., supposedly Adam Smith and David Ricardo made similar statements describing what "value" is, and they made the quantity of labor the basic measure of the value.

But does this make sense? What about the value of a used item? What about an item like land, or a rock, or something not "produced" by human labor?

A used item might be more valuable if it is an antique, which might have nothing to do with the labor involved in producing it 200 years ago.

Shouldn't a real theory of "value" be one which takes into account ALL items bought and sold in the market, including antiques and objects owned but not produced by human labor?

Here's a different (and much older) theory of value which makes supply-and-demand the basic measure of value:

The Price of Wares is the present Value; And ariseth by Computing the occasions or use for them, with the Quantity to serve that Occasion; for the Value of things depending on the use of them, the Over-pluss of Those Wares, which are more than can be used, become worth nothing; So that Plenty, in respect of the occasion, makes things cheap; and Scarcity, dear. . . .

But the Market is the best Judge of Value; for by the Concourse of Buyers and Sellers, the Quantity of Wares, and the Occasion for them are Best known: Things are just worth so much, as they can be sold for, according to the Old Rule, Valet Quantum Vendi potest.

Nicholas Barbon, A Discourse of Trade, 1690

I.e, "It's worth as much as it can be sold for."

Whatever someone's willing to pay. And what the seller is willing to accept. And supply/demand is what determines this.

Why isn't this the best definition of "value" -- (aside from the archaic language)? How does the Labor Theory of Value do any improvement to the above? Why isn't this better than Smith or Ricardo or Marx?

Barbon's definition of "value" explains why an antique might be more valuable than a recently-produced item which might work better and required costly labor to produce. It explains how the value of ANYTHING in the market is determined, whereas the Marx definition excludes anything that is not produced in a factory and is not new.

Isn't the correct definition the one which defines "value" in ALL cases of something being bought or sold?

Since the LTV, as Marx presents it, cannot account for "value" in ALL cases, doesn't it have to be rejected in favor of something like the Barbon, which covers ALL examples of anything bought/sold?

http://labortheoryofvalue.blogspot.com/

WAB

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Does the Labor Theory of Value make sense today? Did it ever?

What determines the value of anything that is bought and sold in the marketplace?
The value is determined by if anyone wants wants it and what they are willing to pay.

Someone could spend weeks making making something but if no one wants it then it has no value.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.
While I doubt there would be enough traffic to support a full subforum, I'm sure people would be interested if you used our not-very-busy Social Sciences forum to start discussions of economics, as you have done here.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
I'm not sure if I agree that there is a general disinterest in economics, either; if anything, the recent resergence of socialist thinking in American popular culture has inspired a lot of fresh interest in the subject among my students. It is also often the area of the social sciences arguably the most familiar to them, as along with (sometimes) political science it is the only of the social sciences to still be meaningfully included in their secondary education. Anthropology, sociology, psychology, and the others are usually terra nova for them when they begin college, whereas the basic terminology of economics and poly sci they at least remember hearing of before.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.
Any discussion of economics on the web generally degenerates into politics. This would make the topic more appropriate to the political discussion forum.... as your above posts demonstrate.

Then again, so do most discussions of the social sciences generally. At least on this forum. I've never heard of economics resting under the aegis of any other broad discipline group than the social sciences in academic contexts, aside from institutions where it constitutes its own autonomous college. Then again, the same is true of political science.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
The only Forever is the Consumer, or serving the Consumer -- the whole population -- and the wage-earners and all other producers are only a means to that end.
As a "serious economist", I'm surprised you would say something so ridiculous as describing consumers as a constant. American consumption has in fact been on quite a wild ride for the last few decades, with wild swings in response to the issues of the day. Workers are the consumers, in a mostly lower- and middle-class nation, and you cannot be the sole means to your own end. If people aren't being compensated reasonably for their labor, they aren't going to have the confidence necessary to reinvest their wages in many of the products those trucks of yours are supposed to be hauling. Nor are migrant workers usually at liberty to spend large amounts of surplus income on consumer goods, and much of what they do earn ends up in other national economies by remittance (I'm not personally offended by this as some are, but it is a reality). While we will always need things like cheap food, clothing, and housing materials, those kinds of products do not drive the economy or generate needed tax revenue in the way that luxury goods do. As we see throughout the developing world, a generally poverty-stricken population is a certainly a market, but it is not a particularly lucrative market, unless inexpensive labor is the product you're after. Personally, I would not like to see my country become little more than the labor pool for more forward-thinking nations on the other side of the Pacific Rim.

I do agree that we should be fostering international labor connections, but I don't think low wages and long hours are the draw for immigrant laborers that you seem to think they are. If we destroy the ability of the average American worker to earn a serviceable income, we will simply cease to be a destination country for those seeking a better life abroad.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.
Any discussion of economics on the web generally degenerates into politics. This would make the topic more appropriate to the political discussion forum.... as your above posts demonstrate.

Then again, so do most discussions of the social sciences generally. At least on this forum. I've never heard of economics resting under the aegis of any other broad discipline group than the social sciences in academic contexts, aside from institutions where it constitutes its own autonomous college. Then again, the same is true of political science.
Economics is an objective study. There are quite a few different possible economic systems and they all function differently. A purely socialist system functions differently than a purely capitalist system that functions differently than a mercantilist system that functions differently than a feudalist system, etc. etc. Generally, real world systems are a mixture of more than one. A study of the functioning of any specific or real world merge of economic systems is economics.

OTOH, generally web discussions are about subjective opinions of what "ought to be". This amounts to little more than political opinion (not economics) and, like ass holes, everyone has one.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Or there are other versions of the LTV which say essentially the same thing. E.g., supposedly Adam Smith and David Ricardo made similar statements describing what "value" is, and they made the quantity of labor the basic measure of the value.
The people who suppose Adam Smith to have said essentially the same thing read him carelessly. Here's the clearest explanation of the distinction I've seen:

Smith is saying that the value of something to you is the labor it saves you, and the cost of something to you is its opportunity cost: what you have to give up to get it. But the "labor theory of value" says that the cost of something to me should be determined by the labor it costs you, who are trying to sell it to me. That's not the same thing.​

(Source: someone with the handle "pdonis")

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Should someone who goes through all the work and training to be a brain surgeon be compensated the same as a cab driver?

That is what it comes down to, what is 'fair'?

One of the positives of the existing system is you can work as little as possible or as hard as you want to making money.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
Should someone who goes through all the work and training to be a brain surgeon be compensated the same as a cab driver?
No, but both forms of labor should be compensated in such a way that you will live above the poverty line if you work them full time.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Should someone who goes through all the work and training to be a brain surgeon be compensated the same as a cab driver?

That is what it comes down to, what is 'fair'?

One of the positives of the existing system is you can work as little as possible or as hard as you want to making money.
That is a political question. You are asking what economic system the government should impose and/or allow.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Does the Labor Theory of Value make sense today? Did it ever?

What determines the value of anything that is bought and sold in the marketplace?
The value is determined by if anyone wants wants it and what they are willing to pay.

Someone could spend weeks making making something but if no one wants it then it has no value.

Quite. The "supply and demand" nonsense that was Trojaned in there is contradictory with the argument that value is determined by what someone is willing to pay; If what someone was willing to pay was determined by supply and demand, then all original paintings would have equal (and very high) value. Oddly, my untalented daubings, despite being far fewer in number than van Gogh's surviving works, are less valuable than 'Sunflowers'.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Should someone who goes through all the work and training to be a brain surgeon be compensated the same as a cab driver?
Before asking that, shouldn't you ask whether the best and only determinant of how much a person should be paid is the amount of effort required to obtain the requisite skills?

Because that assumption, that more "work and training" required to do a job renders that job more valuable, looks to me exactly like the labour theory of value that, up to this point, everyone in this thread has agreed to be nonsensical.

It takes a lot of effort, and a lot of time, to learn to juggle chainsaws. There are FAR fewer chainsaw jugglers in the world than there are brain surgeons (reflecting the huge effort and difficulty in becoming a chainsaw juggler); Yet there are likely hundreds of times more people who have seen a chainsaw juggling act than there are people who have had brain surgery.

So by your hypothesis, and by Lumpen's 'supply and demand' hypothesis, chainsaw jugglers should earn similar money to that earned by neurosurgeons.
That is what it comes down to, what is 'fair'?
Not really. There are two questions here: What is the 'value' of someone's labour? (An economic question); And what compensation for someone's existence (including, but not necessarily limited to, their paid labour) is 'fair'? (A political question).
One of the positives of the existing system is you can work as little as possible or as hard as you want to making money.

One of the problems of the American school of thought is that it considers making money to be significant and important in its own right. Which is, frankly, no less incoherent than the labour theory of value - a theory that once again you are depending upon here. Lots of people gain vast wealth for no more effort than being born; Many more gain vast wealth working in a clean office never picking up anything heavier than a pen; And a huge number remain poor despite long hours of gruelling labour in all weathers.

Working "as little as possible or as hard as you want" appears to be almost completely unrelated to "making money". If anything, correlating income against effort suggests that the more you earn, the less you need to do to earn it, and the less you need to do to further increase your earnings.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Controlled by workers? Russian and Chinese communism tried that, both failed.

Russia morphed into an authoritarian kleptocracy and China is communist in name only. China morphed into a quasi free market economy. They identify as socialist these days.

In any economic system the same issues exist, how oo allocate labor, compensation, and what and how much gets produced. On the scale of the USA exactly how would the 'people' control the economy?

Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind.

Animal farm is not about worker control. It is about what plagues humanity. It was about anti-democratic thinking.

Worker control ever happened except in Anarchist Spain in the 30's. That's why Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, capitalist US and Britain and dictatorial USSR calling itself communist all attacked the Anarchists.

The Soviet Union was a rigid top-down dictatorship. Same with China.

Were you asleep during history class? Never heard of Stalin?

Workers didn't control shit in either the Soviet Union or China.

US workers had some control when unions controlled the Democratic Party.

And when unions controlled the Democratic party it was the golden age of US capitalism and the Middle Class arose.

But that ended with Clinton 30 years ago.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Should someone who goes through all the work and training to be a brain surgeon be compensated the same as a cab driver?

That is what it comes down to, what is 'fair'?

One of the positives of the existing system is you can work as little as possible or as hard as you want to making money.
That is a political question. You are asking what economic system the government should impose and/or allow.

It is a social science question, but yiu can not discuss it without politics as well.

Going forward the economic system will determine social and civil stability. Right now in Seattle we have experienced social and civil instability. It is not pretty.

As to the people controlling the economy we saw some of that dea play out here. The CHOP zone filled with people who declred it independent of civil law and govt control. Result, anarchy, murder, crime, violence, rape, and suppression of free speech.

The economy is everything.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Does the Labor Theory of Value make sense today? Did it ever?

What determines the value of anything that is bought and sold in the marketplace?
The value is determined by if anyone wants wants it and what they are willing to pay.

Someone could spend weeks making making something but if no one wants it then it has no value.

Quite. The "supply and demand" nonsense that was Trojaned in there is contradictory with the argument that value is determined by what someone is willing to pay; If what someone was willing to pay was determined by supply and demand, then all original paintings would have equal (and very high) value.
Only if people had the same taste for original paintings regardless of their style or content.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Or there are other versions of the LTV which say essentially the same thing. E.g., supposedly Adam Smith and David Ricardo made similar statements describing what "value" is, and they made the quantity of labor the basic measure of the value.
The people who suppose Adam Smith to have said essentially the same thing read him carelessly. Here's the clearest explanation of the distinction I've seen:

Smith is saying that the value of something to you is the labor it saves you, and the cost of something to you is its opportunity cost: what you have to give up to get it. But the "labor theory of value" says that the cost of something to me should be determined by the labor it costs you, who are trying to sell it to me. That's not the same thing.​

(Source: someone with the handle "pdonis")
Actually Smith differentiated between the real value and nominal value of a product. The "real" value to Smith is determined by labor but the nominal value is not. (https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/steven-horwitz-adam-smith-on-the-labor-theory-of-value).

Another way to look at the labor theory of value is that it is search for an explanation of the "true" or "real" value rather than the market or exchange value. Whether or not one thinks that the distinction between "real/true' value and the market value is useful or helpful is another matter.

Long ago, the discipline of political economy abandoned the distinction between "true" and "market" value as useful.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
"The Citizen Dividend" -- maybe a legitimate theory of wealth redistribution (less inequality)

Just heard this book promoted on a Left-wing talk show. Our Fair Share by Brian C. Johnson.

This might be legitimate economics vs. the very popular employer-bashing Crybaby Economics we hear so much. The worst of Crybaby Economics can be summed up as

immigrant bashing and bashing employers who hire immigrants
demand for higher minimum wage

It's not only Democrats who are the crybaby-panderers, but also Republicans:

Donald Trump was a champion for Crybaby Economics, bashing foreign competition/globalism, cracking down on desired immigration to get needed work done, and even promoting higher wages in his revised Mexico-U.S.A. trade agreement. Democrats and labor favored this latter part of Trump's trade deal, as usual putting petty politics and labor union demagoguery ahead of the economy. Driving up the wage level for autoworkers serves no purpose other than to drive up prices consumers must pay, and also hurt production. Artificially higher cost of business is popular among some crybabies but makes the whole population worse off.

But Crybaby Economics is not the only element in Progressive/Left wealth-redistribution agenda. The crusade for income redistribution has a good part to it, along with the bad. The bad part is the constant obsession with wages and employer-bashing.

When the Leftists go after the employers as a class, demanding higher minimum wage and more labor laws to crack down indiscriminately on employers per se, they are destroying the economy by discouraging work and needed production.

On the other hand, a tax on the super-rich per se (not on employers as a class), might be a legitimate way to redistribute wealth from the extreme top down to the middle- and lower-income classes.

This author was interviewed by Chicago's progressive talk show host Joan Esposito, and this discussion was able to go several minutes without one crybaby attack on employers, and without identifying the whole country with "the working class" and "the workers" as being the ones victimized by the income inequality (or wealth inequality) problem.

Instead of identifying "the workers" or "the working class" as the counterpart to the super-rich who dominate the economy, the author identifies all of us, all who are not in the top 10% or top 1% wealthiest, as the ones who deserve a larger share. And this larger share is to be gained not mainly through giving money to select victims down below, but by having the super-rich pay for public needs, like infrastructure, which is being neglected. So that the resources are to go to us all, from the lowest to the highest, for benefits to everyone.

excerpt from a book promotion:

Brian C. Johnson combines accessible scholarship on wealth and income inequality in America with deeply personal accounts of six Americans of diverse backgrounds who are each wrestling with what it means to survive and thrive in this new economic world. In so doing, he offers a solution that is as visionary as it is practical. Dubbed the Citizen Dividend, this revolutionary model assumes that economic growth is built off of the wealth we have created together as a country, and together we all reap its benefits. In Our Fair Share, Johnson lays the groundwork for implementing this solution, detailing what the Citizen Dividend is, offering examples of similar existing models, outlining the benefits of such systems, tackling some of the common concerns that arise, and offering a path toward making it a reality.

It appears to at least reduce way down, if not eliminate altogether, the element of employer-bashing and Crybaby Economics we constantly get from the Left, from the Bernie-AOC-Left assault against capitalism, aimed at the hated employer class, and instead focuses on simply taking a larger share of wealth from the very top 1% (or 10%) wealthiest, without scapegoating employers per se or equating this class with the super-rich.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
A rule for higher wages, but overall increased poverty and suffering

Should someone who goes through all the work and training to be a brain surgeon be compensated the same as a cab driver?
No, but both forms of labor should be compensated in such a way that you will live above the poverty line if you work them full time.

"above the poverty line" is subjective, no objective meaning or standard to measure, varies from individual to individual, from one locality to another, one society to another.

There are inevitably some low-skill workers, in virtually all economic environments, who cannot get hired unless they take employment at a compensation level lower than what someone labels as "the poverty level." In their case, the 2 choices are 1) a low-paying job (below "the poverty level"), or 2) no job and thus a worse level of poverty.

So if we apply this nice-sounding mandate that everyone working must be paid at the poverty level or higher, and any employment not in compliance with this is ruled out or not permitted, then this pleasant-sounding mandate means worse poverty for all those workers. It means increased suffering for a certain class of low-skill job-seekers.

At best you can only hope that the same mandate, though inflicting increased suffering onto this low-value class, also causes reduced suffering to some other class, and that this reduced suffering (or increased benefit) is greater than the harm done to the low-value class made worse off. But it's probably not true that the increased benefit to some poor workers offsets the increased suffering to others, because one definite result of this mandate is that it causes net reduced production in the whole economy, because the elimination of the low-paid employment results in a total net reduced production in the overall economy = reduced supply to all consumers.

If all we know for sure is that total production (supply) is reduced, and thus less total wealth is produced, that means a total net reduction of supply to all consumers throughout the whole economy. Probably meaning overall net more harm than benefit.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Or there are other versions of the LTV which say essentially the same thing. E.g., supposedly Adam Smith and David Ricardo made similar statements describing what "value" is, and they made the quantity of labor the basic measure of the value.
The people who suppose Adam Smith to have said essentially the same thing read him carelessly. Here's the clearest explanation of the distinction I've seen:

Smith is saying that the value of something to you is the labor it saves you, and the cost of something to you is its opportunity cost: what you have to give up to get it. But the "labor theory of value" says that the cost of something to me should be determined by the labor it costs you, who are trying to sell it to me. That's not the same thing.​

(Source: someone with the handle "pdonis")
Actually Smith differentiated between the real value and nominal value of a product. The "real" value to Smith is determined by labor but the nominal value is not. (https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/steven-horwitz-adam-smith-on-the-labor-theory-of-value).

Another way to look at the labor theory of value is that it is search for an explanation of the "true" or "real" value rather than the market or exchange value. Whether or not one thinks that the distinction between "real/true' value and the market value is useful or helpful is another matter.

Long ago, the discipline of political economy abandoned the distinction between "true" and "market" value as useful.

In modern terms I would frame that as simply the cost of labor and materials of a product versus what the market value is.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The only objective way to asses a poverty level is having enough for food and decemt shler for self and family.

Poverty in the USA today is nothing like what poverty meant when I was born in 1951.

A smart phone with global connivations on tye net costs around $60 and internet service can be as low as$30 a month.

The way to ascees a poverty line is the average wage versus hw nany hours yu have to work for something.''In tye 0s a fuly loaded IBM PC coud run $4-6k and wages were around$8 an hour.

Today wages are $15-25 a hour and a PC can be had for around$1k or about 100 hours.

The true measure is how log the average person has to work to buy something.

The cost of a Big Mac was once used to compare earning power around the world.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
It's supply-and-demand which primarily determines the value. All the rest is secondary to supply-and-demand.

Before asking that, shouldn't you ask whether the best and only determinant of how much a person should be paid is the amount of effort required to obtain the requisite skills?

Because that assumption, that more "work and training" required to do a job renders that job more valuable, looks to me exactly like the labour theory of value that, up to this point, everyone in this thread has agreed to be nonsensical.

It's still nonsensical. The value is the supply and demand only, regardless of the "work and training" required. What's important about the "work and training" is that this has an impact on the supply. It's only because "work and training" has an impact on supply that it also is important in determining the value. If the production is more difficult, for whatever reason, then that makes the product more scarce.

E.g., today there is a shortage of PLUMBERS. The main problem is the lack of supply. But the reason is that there've been so few plumbers trained. The plumber trainees must do some work to prepare, but not as much work as -- how about a personnel relations psychology counselor, e.g.

So lets compare Plumber trainees vs. personnel relations psychology counselor trainees

Which is more valuable? Probably today the Plumber trainee is more valuable, despite not having to do as much training. The plumber does not require 2 or 3 college degrees like the psychology counselor. Nevertheless, today the shortage of plumbers is greater. So the new trained plumber is in more demand, will probably get hired sooner and be paid more.

So it's not that the "training and work" is more valuable or determines the value. Rather it's the supply-and-demand which determines the value, totally, with the training and work being only secondary to the supply-and-demand.

So yes, the "training and work" is important in determining the value. But only because this impacts on the supply-and-demand, or is secondary to supply-and-demand as the primary determinant of the value. While the "training and work" is of secondary importance only.

It takes a lot of effort, and a lot of time, to learn to juggle chainsaws. There are FAR fewer chainsaw jugglers in the world than there are brain surgeons (reflecting the huge effort and difficulty in becoming a chainsaw juggler); Yet there are likely hundreds of times more people who have seen a chainsaw juggling act than there are people who have had brain surgery.

This agrees with supply-and-demand as determining the market value of both. Perhaps there is a very good chainsaw juggler who can attract large audiences and earn more than a brain surgeon. Most jugglers probably aren't good enough to arouse enough interest to earn as much as a brain surgeon. Entertainment can be hugely rewarding/profitable to someone who is good enough. Probably natural talent is also a factor, which is mostly due to luck. But there's no reason why a very talented juggler couldn't earn more than an average brain surgeon, in rare cases of exceptionally talented jugglers, or other kinds of entertainers. Obviously some professional athletes earn far more than a typical brain surgeon, because of their rare talent.

Supply-and-demand is what explains it. Not "work and training" per se.

So by your hypothesis, and by Lumpen's 'supply and demand' hypothesis, chainsaw jugglers should earn similar money to that earned by neurosurgeons.

Maybe some do -- rare cases, rare talent, attracting large-enough audiences. Nothing rules it out. If none of them earns that much it's because there isn't that much demand for such entertainment.

Not really. There are two questions here: What is the 'value' of someone's labour? (An economic question); And what compensation for someone's existence (including, but not necessarily limited to, their paid labour) is 'fair'? (A political question).

No, "fair" is a totally subjective notion, varying widely from one philosopher / religious guru to another.

"Fair" can have no objective meaning other than in terms of the utilitarian benefit/harm which results from the labor or production for the benefit of consumers, or benefit of the public in the case of infrastructure or public goods. And the only "fair" that has any objective meaning is the "fair" to the consumers/public for whom the work or the production takes place.

Serving those consumers, or serving the public is the only overall benefit which matters. Whatever best accomplishes that service to consumers / public matters. Whatever system of paying workers/producers that results in the best output for all consumers is the right system.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
"Crybaby" Economics vs. Economics 1A

The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".

No, the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas.

E.g., if you're mugged on the street and all your money is taken, you're entitled to complain that you "deserve" back what was taken from you. Or, if a deal is agreed to between 2 parties, in a contract they sign and which requires payment by one to the other, it's not necessarily "crybaby economics" for one to complain that the other violated the terms, or that one's "share" turned out less than what was agreed to.

The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.

The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".

No, the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas.

E.g., if you're mugged on the street and all your money is taken, you're entitled to complain that you "deserve" back what was taken from you. Or, if a deal is agreed to between 2 parties, in a contract they sign and which requires payment by one to the other, it's not necessarily "crybaby economics" for one to complain that the other violated the terms, or that one's "share" turned out less than what was agreed to.
Your examples are ridiculous because they do not deal with "deserve a larger share".
The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.
No one said it did.
The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.
Your word salad is special pleading for your crybaby economics because there is no objective reason for your target recipients to get what you feel they deserve. Your "maximizing the benefits to everyone" standard is ill-defined handwaving to justify your normative economics (or what people call "political views).

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The only objective way to asses a poverty level is having enough for food and decemt shler for self and family.

Poverty in the USA today is nothing like what poverty meant when I was born in 1951.

A smart phone with global connivations on tye net costs around $60 and internet service can be as low as$30 a month.

The way to ascees a poverty line is the average wage versus hw nany hours yu have to work for something.''In tye 0s a fuly loaded IBM PC coud run $4-6k and wages were around$8 an hour.

Today wages are $15-25 a hour and a PC can be had for around$1k or about 100 hours.

The true measure is how log the average person has to work to buy something.

The cost of a Big Mac was once used to compare earning power around the world.

Why is the average person the benchmark?

Leaving aside the question of which "average" (mean and median get you very different results), whatever is so important about the average? Why not measure by the number of people who don't have enough to eat, or don't have a place to sleep that's out of the rain?

What does it matter that a Big Mac takes fewer working hours to earn, to a person without a job? What good is cheap rent to a person with no money? What is the value of a society that discards people who cannot reach a standard specified by their "average" compatriots?

Humans have always supported vast numbers of people who cannot support themselves. What a broken and pathetic philosophy it is, that says we can turn our backs on some of those people, because they are unable or even just unwilling to be enslaved to the ideal of the average?

This monstrous and stupid concept of self reliance and self sufficiency is truly awful. No person can live without the support of others. Bear Grylls may be able to survive in the wilderness for months, but he cannot do so using only those things made by Bear Grylls. His Swiss Army Knife implies the existence of, and his dependence on, Switzerland and her Army.

What bizarre logic says that a baby can be provided for, despite having never done anything useful for anyone; But that a man who has fallen on hard times cannot or should not be provided for?

Are we to accept that the nurturing, feeding, teaching, and loving of a child is of zero value? Because zero is the current market rate paid by those consumers.

Any theory of value that implies zero value for this freely given but clearly essential activity is itself valueless. And even libertarians typically resile from saying that infants should become financially indebted to their carers - while missing the obvious contradiction implied by putting people in debt for education.

The very central tenet of the OP - that economics is itself important and can be separated from politics - is beyond absurd. It's a denial of the fundamental fact that Homo Sapiens is a social species. Which is a philosophy that can only be seriously believed by the insane.

Accounting degrees of indebtedness* is a fairly useful tool. It has wide application. But it's not, and cannot be, universal.

Economists think money can do everything, but they're like Glaswegian chefs, who having discovered deep frying, refuse to countenance any other recipe for anything.

*ie "Money"

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
OK. So average is a crap notion.

I suggest you come back with a set of operations that can be objectively applied to commerce. Then, instead of reading awful this, and impossible that, we might be treated to the basis for a discussion.

It's not my ship to keep afloat.

Who are, from whence come, Glaswegians?

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
OK. So average is a crap notion.

I suggest you come back with a set of operations that can be objectively applied to commerce. Then, instead of reading awful this, and impossible that, we might be treated to the basis for a discussion.

It's not my ship to keep afloat.

Who are, from whence come, Glaswegians?

I don't give shit the first about "commerce". What matters is society. Commerce is one of many facets of society, and shouldn't be elevated above all others.

And Glasgow.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Who are, from whence come, Glaswegians?
And Glasgow.
Well, getting from "gow" to "weg" at least vaguely makes sense. Explain "Taswegians".

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Who are, from whence come, Glaswegians?
And Glasgow.
Well, getting from "gow" to "weg" at least vaguely makes sense. Explain "Taswegians".

Comic reference to Glaswegians, helped by the near-homophone of "Glas"/"Tas".

If you think "Taswegians" is a stretch, wait 'til you see "Brisvegas".

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".

How dare you post something I agree with?!?!

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The only objective way to asses a poverty level is having enough for food and decemt shler for self and family.

Poverty in the USA today is nothing like what poverty meant when I was born in 1951.

A smart phone with global connivations on tye net costs around $60 and internet service can be as low as$30 a month.

The way to ascees a poverty line is the average wage versus hw nany hours yu have to work for something.''In tye 0s a fuly loaded IBM PC coud run $4-6k and wages were around$8 an hour.

Today wages are $15-25 a hour and a PC can be had for around$1k or about 100 hours.

The true measure is how log the average person has to work to buy something.

The cost of a Big Mac was once used to compare earning power around the world.

I don't like the Big Mac index because restaurant prices are so sensitive to the cost of cheap labor. I do agree with the basic concept, but you should be comparing a basket of goods. That's what purchasing power parity is about.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
"Crybaby Economics" = demanding benefits which others have to pay for --

-- and the net value of those benefits is less than the costs.

"The Citizen Dividend" -- maybe a legitimate theory of wealth redistribution (less inequality)

excerpt from a book promotion:

Brian C. Johnson combines accessible scholarship on wealth and income inequality in America with deeply personal accounts of six Americans of diverse backgrounds who are each wrestling with what it means to survive and thrive in this new economic world. In so doing, he offers a solution that is as visionary as it is practical. Dubbed the Citizen Dividend, this revolutionary model assumes that economic growth is built off of the wealth we have created together as a country, and together we all reap its benefits. In Our Fair Share, Johnson lays the groundwork for implementing this solution, detailing what the Citizen Dividend is, offering examples of similar existing models, outlining the benefits of such systems, tackling some of the common concerns that arise, and offering a path toward making it a reality.

It appears to at least reduce way down, if not eliminate altogether, the element of employer-bashing and Crybaby Economics we constantly get from the Left, from the Bernie-AOC-Left assault against capitalism, aimed at the hated employer class, and instead focuses on simply taking a larger share of wealth from the very top 1% (or 10%) wealthiest, without scapegoating employers per se or equating this class with the super-rich.

The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".
No, the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas. . . .

The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.

The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.

the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas.

E.g., if you're mugged on the street and all your money is taken, you're entitled to complain that you "deserve" back what was taken from you. Or, if a deal is agreed to between 2 parties, in a contract they sign and which requires payment by one to the other, it's not necessarily "crybaby economics" for one to complain that the other violated the terms, or that one's "share" turned out less than what was agreed to.
Your examples are ridiculous because they do not deal with "deserve a larger share".

Yes they do. If you're robbed, are you not deprived of "your share"? You are short "your share" by the amount that was removed from you by the robber. For compensation a court would reward you back what was taken plus costs for any injury or inconvenience. If you never get compensated, then you never recover "your share" that was taken from you. How can you say the victim of this robbery is a "crybaby" for complaining that they're entitled to this compensation or restoration of "their share" of the total wealth which they had prior to being robbed? Even if the victim is mistaken in thinking that the compensation is possible, s/he still is not a "crybaby" for claiming that they wrongly lost "their share" and that they "deserve" it back if it were possible to recover it.

And isn't a party to a contract deprived of "their fair share" if the other party defaults by violating the terms? How is that one defrauded being a "crybaby" to demand compensation or damages? Didn't the ones defrauded by Bernie Madoff "deserve a larger share" than what he had left them with?

Aren't there many cases of someone getting ripped off by another? in both civil and criminal cases? Isn't the victim in each case deprived of "their fair share" of the property or assets because of the criminal or fraudulent behavior of the perpetrator? Doesn't that victim "deserve a larger share" than what that perpetrator left them with?

And doesn't the tax law mean that the government "deserves a share" of an individual citizen's wealth? How can taxes be required and be collected forcefully unless the amount collected is recognized as being the proper "share" that the state is entitled to, and which it "deserves" to have? And how is it not so that it "deserves a larger share" from a certain taxpayer who evaded paying? or if certain interests are rigging the system to escape paying a "share" proportional to the benefits they demand to be provided to them by the state?

"Crybaby Economics" means demanding something you're NOT entitled to, or something which you did NOT earn or gain through merit. It does not mean demanding something if you are entitled to it.

Whereas,
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
defines "Crybaby Economics" as demanding anything at all, including something you're entitled to.

There is such a thing as being entitled to something, or rightfully owning something, though being deprived of it, or deserving something because it's yours or you gained it legitimately. There is legitimate and non-legitimate demand for something or claimed ownership of something.

Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
means that a slave is a crybaby for demanding to be set free, because he thinks he's entitled to a "larger share" in life than the slaveowner allows him.

You're wrong to imply that slaves were crybabies for demanding "a larger share" than was given to them by the economic or legal system in which they lived.

The term "Crybaby Economics" doesn't mean any demand at all for "a larger share" -- it means that someone demands something which inflicts an undue cost onto others in order to pay for it. There can be disagreement on what is an undue cost, or what the cost vs. benefit is when someone makes a demand. But you cannot brand every demand anyone makes as a "crybaby" demand simply because they claim to "deserve more" than they have or claim they got gypped or cheated, etc. There are legitimate demands for "more" or a "larger share" in some cases.

Not every demand for "a larger share" is a crybaby demand. As you're claiming when you say
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"

Claiming to "deserve a larger share" is not ipso facto a crybaby demand, or a case of "Crybaby Economics."

If it's true that
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
then the state is being a crybaby to require a tax evader to pay more or be prosecuted. It means anyone wanting tax loopholes to be eliminated is a crybaby. If that's what "crybaby economics" means, then even President Reagan was being a crybaby when he promoted tax law reforms to eliminate some tax loopholes for the rich.

Reforming tax law to require the rich to pay more is based on the premise that the state "deserves a larger share" of revenue from those taxpayers. But it's not "crybaby economics" to require the rich to pay more in cases where they're not paying enough. Not all demands to get "more" from someone are "crybaby" demands.

The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.
No one said it did.

This statement says that:
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
It says that anytime someone demands "a larger share" of something, it's "crybaby economics," no matter how legitimate the demand might be. There is such a thing as a legitimate demand for "a larger share" of something, in some cases, and this is denied by the statement
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
which brands all such demands as "crybaby" demands, no matter how legitimate they may be.

The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. (Maybe it is in some cases, but in other cases it is a legitimate idea.) These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.

No, it's not "special pleading" to say one thing is right and another thing wrong. There are reasons to favor one but oppose another.

There are objective reasons to meet some demands and not others, or for some "target recipients" to receive what they demand and others not to. Trump and Sanders demand certain benefits to steel companies and auto companies, or pander to their demands, such as for higher protective barriers against imports. This is a crybaby demand because it benefits those companies only, and their workers, and imposes an undue cost onto 330 million U.S. consumers, thus inflicting damage onto the greater number while benefiting a small minority special interest.

But by contrast a tax on Wall Street would benefit the whole population equally by providing revenue far more efficiently than what is collected from income tax, so that a far greater fraction of each dollar collected would go to paying the budget expenses and a much smaller fraction paid toward enforcement of the tax collection. So this would benefit the whole country, not just a small special interest as with the bad trade policies.

So there are good reasons to favor one and oppose the other. It's not "special pleading" to agree on one point and disagree on another.

Your "maximizing the benefits to everyone" standard is ill-defined handwaving to justify your normative economics (or what people call "political views).

What is "ill-defined" about maximizing benefit to people? Why are you against people benefiting? What do you favor instead?

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
examples of CRYBABY ECONOMICS

• King Charles I creating jobs

Jobs Created by ELIMINATING Wind Power
Last year a wind-powered sawmill was built near the Strand, London. (The Strand is a major road following the Thames River.) Apparently it has been such a successful business that a lot of sawyers are out of work. (A sawyer is man who saws wood by hand.) King Charles the 1st of England is fighting an economic slump so he demolishes the sawmill in order to quell a possible riot and puts the sawyers back to work. http://tspwiki.com/index.php?title=1634#Jobs_Created_by_ELIMINATING_Wind_Power_.2A

This job-creation by Charles I = CRYBABY ECONOMICS because it was done to pander to the interests of a few uncompetitive sawmill workers, giving them a benefit, but done at the cost of the whole nation which had to pay higher prices for wood products.

When a special interest makes demands which inflict a cost onto everyone else, that is a crybaby demand, benefiting the complaining group at everyone else's expense.

In this case it is done in order to provide slots into which to put the crybabies, to keep them out of mischief.
__________________

• Trump's job creation for steelworkers and autoworkers = CRYBABY ECONOMICS, higher costs to all consumers, because of the much higher labor cost necessary for the special-interest domestic workers doing the same work done earlier by Chinese and other foreign workers at a fraction of the cost. Also anti-dumping laws which drive up prices paid by all consumers.
___________________

• Cracking down on immigrant workers/reducing visas and cracking down on employers hiring immigrants, keeping out immigrant workers in order to reduce competition with domestic workers = CRYBABY ECONOMICS, done to protect a minority of domestic workers, to boost their incomes, at the expense of 300 million consumers who have to pay higher prices as a result of the higher labor cost and/or the labor shortage because of unfilled jobs.
____________________

• The crusade for LOWER GAS TAXES, demanded by mobs of protesters in France and other countries, and pandering to this demand = CRYBABY ECONOMICS to benefit the present generation with lower prices, while inflicting higher carbon emissions and damage to the climate for later generations, which will result in mass suffering and millions of lives lost as a result of cost imposed to satisfy the demand today. Also Biden's and every President's plea to OPEC to increase oil production and reduce prices = more carbon emissions and more damage inflicted onto the future.
_____________________

• Pandering to coal companies and coal miners, to save jobs = CRYBABY ECONOMICS, to benefit special interest companies and workers, for their benefit, at the cost of continued fossil fuel emissions which will inflict costs onto future generations, including mass starvation and millions of lives lost due to climate change, much of which could be prevented.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this.

What is the prejudice against this topic? The National Debt, Trade and Globalism, Supply-and-Demand, Labor laws and Labor disputes, Taxes, etc. Our quality of life, welfare, living standard is largely dependent on how these are addressed, but the average American is apparently a crybaby who cannot stand to hear of it and cannot bear to critically judge the decisions being made (and preached but not debated) in high places, by speech-makers who mostly just pander to certain factions who aggressively solicit them, to the detriment of everyone else.

When I went to college the Economics classes were held mostly in the Social Science Bldg., so putting this here seems reasonable, for lack of a proper place being provided for it.

The extreme contempt for Economics, and mindlessness today among the idiots and crybabies and restless natives of America (and other countries also?) shows through in the following:
Perhaps this discussion would fit better under miscellaneous.

This is HATE, almost as bad as hate against a class or race, only in this case it's hate against a topic people can't bear to think about. At most, people only want to give it just enough time to focus on the particular class or race they hate, and slam that hated object -- immigrants, employers, Jews, greedy capitalist pigs, foreigners, landlords, sweatshop owners, scab laborers, etc. -- and then run away before the targeted scapegoat has a chance to even see what hit them.

I don't know if this is only a U.S.A. mental disease, or if it's worldwide. I've seen some programs on BBC (not many, but at least an occasional one), and possibly DW, where there's an intelligent debate/discussion on economics. Perhaps the hate-disease is bad in those countries too, but slightly less widespread than in the U.S.

Economics is part of social science IMHO. It's a super super soft science. Conservatives like to pretend economics isn't a soft science, so that their theories isn't just a question of opinion. As if anybody who doesn't agree with them are ignorant.

I think it's good that economics is discussed in the social science sub forum

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
-- and the net value of those benefits is less than the costs.

The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".
No, the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas. . . .

The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.

The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.

the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas.

E.g., if you're mugged on the street and all your money is taken, you're entitled to complain that you "deserve" back what was taken from you. Or, if a deal is agreed to between 2 parties, in a contract they sign and which requires payment by one to the other, it's not necessarily "crybaby economics" for one to complain that the other violated the terms, or that one's "share" turned out less than what was agreed to.
Your examples are ridiculous because they do not deal with "deserve a larger share".

Yes they do. If you're robbed, are you not deprived of "your share"? You are short "your share" by the amount that was removed from you by the robber. For compensation a court would reward you back what was taken plus costs for any injury or inconvenience. If you never get compensated, then you never recover "your share" that was taken from you. How can you say the victim of this robbery is a "crybaby" for complaining that they're entitled to this compensation or restoration of "their share" of the total wealth which they had prior to being robbed? Even if the victim is mistaken in thinking that the compensation is possible, s/he still is not a "crybaby" for claiming that they wrongly lost "their share" and that they "deserve" it back if it were possible to recover it.

And isn't a party to a contract deprived of "their fair share" if the other party defaults by violating the terms? How is that one defrauded being a "crybaby" to demand compensation or damages? Didn't the ones defrauded by Bernie Madoff "deserve a larger share" than what he had left them with?

Aren't there many cases of someone getting ripped off by another? in both civil and criminal cases? Isn't the victim in each case deprived of "their fair share" of the property or assets because of the criminal or fraudulent behavior of the perpetrator? Doesn't that victim "deserve a larger share" than what that perpetrator left them with?

And doesn't the tax law mean that the government "deserves a share" of an individual citizen's wealth? How can taxes be required and be collected forcefully unless the amount collected is recognized as being the proper "share" that the state is entitled to, and which it "deserves" to have? And how is it not so that it "deserves a larger share" from a certain taxpayer who evaded paying? or if certain interests are rigging the system to escape paying a "share" proportional to the benefits they demand to be provided to them by the state?

"Crybaby Economics" means demanding something you're NOT entitled to, or something which you did NOT earn or gain through merit. It does not mean demanding something if you are entitled to it.

Whereas,
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
defines "Crybaby Economics" as demanding anything at all, including something you're entitled to.

There is such a thing as being entitled to something, or rightfully owning something, though being deprived of it, or deserving something because it's yours or you gained it legitimately. There is legitimate and non-legitimate demand for something or claimed ownership of something.

Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
means that a slave is a crybaby for demanding to be set free, because he thinks he's entitled to a "larger share" in life than the slaveowner allows him.

You're wrong to imply that slaves were crybabies for demanding "a larger share" than was given to them by the economic or legal system in which they lived.

The term "Crybaby Economics" doesn't mean any demand at all for "a larger share" -- it means that someone demands something which inflicts an undue cost onto others in order to pay for it. There can be disagreement on what is an undue cost, or what the cost vs. benefit is when someone makes a demand. But you cannot brand every demand anyone makes as a "crybaby" demand simply because they claim to "deserve more" than they have or claim they got gypped or cheated, etc. There are legitimate demands for "more" or a "larger share" in some cases.

Not every demand for "a larger share" is a crybaby demand. As you're claiming when you say
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"

Claiming to "deserve a larger share" is not ipso facto a crybaby demand, or a case of "Crybaby Economics."

If it's true that
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
then the state is being a crybaby to require a tax evader to pay more or be prosecuted. It means anyone wanting tax loopholes to be eliminated is a crybaby. If that's what "crybaby economics" means, then even President Reagan was being a crybaby when he promoted tax law reforms to eliminate some tax loopholes for the rich.

Reforming tax law to require the rich to pay more is based on the premise that the state "deserves a larger share" of revenue from those taxpayers. But it's not "crybaby economics" to require the rich to pay more in cases where they're not paying enough. Not all demands to get "more" from someone are "crybaby" demands.

The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.
No one said it did.

This statement says that:
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
It says that anytime someone demands "a larger share" of something, it's "crybaby economics," no matter how legitimate the demand might be. There is such a thing as a legitimate demand for "a larger share" of something, in some cases, and this is denied by the statement
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
which brands all such demands as "crybaby" demands, no matter how legitimate they may be.

The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. (Maybe it is in some cases, but in other cases it is a legitimate idea.) These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.

No, it's not "special pleading" to say one thing is right and another thing wrong. There are reasons to favor one but oppose another.

There are objective reasons to meet some demands and not others, or for some "target recipients" to receive what they demand and others not to. Trump and Sanders demand certain benefits to steel companies and auto companies, or pander to their demands, such as for higher protective barriers against imports. This is a crybaby demand because it benefits those companies only, and their workers, and imposes an undue cost onto 330 million U.S. consumers, thus inflicting damage onto the greater number while benefiting a small minority special interest.

But by contrast a tax on Wall Street would benefit the whole population equally by providing revenue far more efficiently than what is collected from income tax, so that a far greater fraction of each dollar collected would go to paying the budget expenses and a much smaller fraction paid toward enforcement of the tax collection. So this would benefit the whole country, not just a small special interest as with the bad trade policies.

So there are good reasons to favor one and oppose the other. It's not "special pleading" to agree on one point and disagree on another.
You are incorrect. You like to call "cry baby economics" policy proposals that allow people to receive more than what they create in the market even when there are reasons to favor those policies. Every policy proposal has reasons driving its support and every proposal has reasons against it. Your proposal fits that category. It is an example of "crybaby economics".

Your "maximizing the benefits to everyone" standard is ill-defined handwaving to justify your normative economics (or what people call "political views).
What is "ill-defined" about maximizing benefit to people?
"Benefits" are ill-defined. How are those "benefits" measured.
Why are you against people benefiting? What do you favor instead?
I m not against people benefitting as a general rule. I am simply pointing out you are unwittingly displaying a blatant double standard.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
What is wrong with this website that it doesn't include an Economics section? I am putting this here in a feeble attempt to correct this. ... When I went to college the Economics classes were held mostly in the Social Science Bldg., so putting this here seems reasonable, for lack of a proper place being provided for it.

The extreme contempt for Economics, and mindlessness today among the idiots and crybabies and restless natives of America (and other countries also?) shows through in the following: ...

"The Citizen Dividend" -- maybe a legitimate theory of wealth redistribution (less inequality) ... The worst of Crybaby Economics can be summed up as ...

The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".

No, the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas. ... "Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. ...
The whole point of calling certain economic ideas "crybaby economics" is to insult those ideas, insult the theorists who advocate those ideas, and insult the voters the advocates of those ideas attract the votes of. Debating what is or is not "crybaby economics" therefore amounts to debating who should be insulted. Who should be insulted is not a scientific question. So if you think Economics belongs in the Science section rather than the Political Discussions section, you should stop using the word "crybaby".

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
Some demands people make are "Crybaby" demands. But not all.

The Citizens dividend appears to be just a different version of "crybaby economics". Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics".

No, "crybaby economics" doesn't just mean someone demands more, like "a larger share" of something. Some such demands are legitimate.

the words "share" and "deserve" are not always crybaby ideas.

E.g., if you're mugged on the street and all your money is taken, you're entitled to complain that you "deserve" back what was taken from you. Or, if a deal is agreed to between 2 parties, in a contract they sign and which requires payment by one to the other, it's not necessarily "crybaby economics" for one to complain that the other violated the terms, or that one's "share" turned out less than what was agreed to.
Your examples are ridiculous because they do not deal with "deserve a larger share".

Yes they do. If you're robbed, are you not deprived of "your share"? You are short "your share" by the amount that was removed from you by the robber. For compensation a court would reward you back what was taken plus costs for any injury or inconvenience. If you never get compensated, then you never recover "your share" that was taken from you. How can you say the victim of this robbery is a "crybaby" for complaining that they're entitled to this compensation or restoration of "their share" of the total wealth which they had prior to being robbed? Even if the victim is mistaken in thinking that the compensation is possible, s/he still is not a "crybaby" for claiming that they wrongly lost "their share" and that they "deserve" it back if it were possible to recover it.

And isn't a party to a contract deprived of "their fair share" if the other party defaults by violating the terms? How is that one defrauded being a "crybaby" to demand compensation or damages? Didn't the ones defrauded by Bernie Madoff "deserve a larger share" than what he had left them with?

Aren't there many cases of someone getting ripped off by another? in both civil and criminal cases? Isn't the victim in each case deprived of "their fair share" of the property or assets because of the criminal or fraudulent behavior of the perpetrator? Doesn't that victim "deserve a larger share" than what that perpetrator left them with?

And doesn't the tax law mean that the government "deserves a share" of an individual citizen's wealth? How can taxes be required and be collected forcefully unless the amount collected is recognized as being the proper "share" that the state is entitled to, and which it "deserves" to have? And how is it not so that it "deserves a larger share" from a certain taxpayer who evaded paying? or if certain interests are rigging the system to escape paying a "share" proportional to the benefits they demand to be provided to them by the state?

"Crybaby Economics" means demanding something you're NOT entitled to, or something which you did NOT earn or gain through merit. It does not mean demanding something if you are entitled to it.

Whereas,
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
defines "Crybaby Economics" as demanding anything at all, including something you're entitled to.

There is such a thing as being entitled to something, or rightfully owning something, though being deprived of it, or deserving something because it's yours or you gained it legitimately. There is legitimate and non-legitimate demand for something or claimed ownership of something.

Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
means that a slave is a crybaby for demanding to be set free, because he thinks he's entitled to a "larger share" in life than the slaveowner allows him.

You're wrong to imply that slaves were crybabies for demanding "a larger share" than was given to them by the economic or legal system in which they lived.

The term "Crybaby Economics" doesn't mean any demand at all for "a larger share" -- it means that someone demands something which inflicts an undue cost onto others in order to pay for it. There can be disagreement on what is an undue cost, or what the cost vs. benefit is when someone makes a demand. But you cannot brand every demand anyone makes as a "crybaby" demand simply because they claim to "deserve more" than they have or claim they got gypped or cheated, etc. There are legitimate demands for "more" or a "larger share" in some cases.

Not every demand for "a larger share" is a crybaby demand. As you're claiming when you say
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"

Claiming to "deserve a larger share" is not ipso facto a crybaby demand, or a case of "Crybaby Economics."

If it's true that
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
then the state is being a crybaby to require a tax evader to pay more or be prosecuted. It means anyone wanting tax loopholes to be eliminated is a crybaby. If that's what "crybaby economics" means, then even President Reagan was being a crybaby when he promoted tax law reforms to eliminate some tax loopholes for the rich.

Reforming tax law to require the rich to pay more is based on the premise that the state "deserves a larger share" of revenue from those taxpayers. But it's not "crybaby economics" to require the rich to pay more in cases where they're not paying enough. Not all demands to get "more" from someone are "crybaby" demands.

The word "crybaby" does not describe every possible demand anyone might make, or every possible complaint someone has that they "deserve" something or that they ended up with less than their entitlement.
No one said it did.

This statement says that:
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
It says that anytime someone demands "a larger share" of something, it's "crybaby economics," no matter how legitimate the demand might be. There is such a thing as a legitimate demand for "a larger share" of something, in some cases, and this is denied by the statement
Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"
which brands all such demands as "crybaby" demands, no matter how legitimate they may be.

The idea that the whole society "deserves" a "share" in the wealth of certain super-rich members, like oil tycoons etc., isn't necessarily a "crybaby" idea. (Maybe it is in some cases, but in other cases it is a legitimate idea.) These issues are settled by looking at all the facts, such as the social costs and benefits, and trying to maximize the benefits to everyone and minimize the costs.

"Crybaby Economics" best describes the protectionist trade economics of demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But not all demands are "crybaby" demands. Bernie's demand for a tax on Wall Street is not a "crybaby" demand like his China-bashing trade demands are.

No, it's not "special pleading" to say one thing is right and another thing wrong. There are reasons to favor one but oppose another.

There are objective reasons to meet some demands and not others, or for some "target recipients" to receive what they demand and others not to. Trump and Sanders demand certain benefits to steel companies and auto companies, or pander to their demands, such as for higher protective barriers against imports. This is a crybaby demand because it benefits those companies only, and their workers, and imposes an undue cost onto 330 million U.S. consumers, thus inflicting damage onto the greater number while benefiting a small minority special interest.

But by contrast a tax on Wall Street would benefit the whole population equally by providing revenue far more efficiently than what is collected from income tax, so that a far greater fraction of each dollar collected would go to paying the budget expenses and a much smaller fraction paid toward enforcement of the tax collection. So this would benefit the whole country, not just a small special interest as with the bad trade policies.

So there are good reasons to favor one and oppose the other. It's not "special pleading" to agree on one point and disagree on another.

You are incorrect. You like to call "cry baby economics" policy proposals that allow people to receive more than what they create in the market even when there are reasons to favor those policies.

Let's take specific examples:

Autoworkers and steelworkers are paid more than they create in value, based on supply-and-demand. It would be easy to hire workers to do that work (based on competition only) and pay them only half or 2/3 as much. They are protected categories because they are high-profile workers who get extra attention -- not because there is any greater need for them. (Also, they aren't necessarily the best example of crybabies, but just easy examples to use to make the point. It's obvious that they get special treatment in terms of being protected against foreign competition, such as Trump protected them with increased barriers against foreign competition.)

They
receive more than what they create in the market"
Yes, because of the extra protection against foreign competition. But
there are reasons to favor those policies
of paying them more than the value they create? What are those reasons? What reason ever is there to pay someone more than the value they create (based on market supply-and-demand)?

There is no shortage of autoworkers and steelworkers. The main reason to pay someone more is that there is a shortage of them, or not enough to meet the market demand. What other reason is there? Why should autoworkers and steelworkers in particular be paid more than their market value?

If you claim there's a special reason to pay autoworkers and steelworkers more than their market value, you have to tell us what that reason is.

There are reasons to pay NO ONE more than their market value. To pay certain workers more than their value causes a disincentive in the economy, to draw them away from where they're really needed. There are many places in the economy where we need those workers much more than we need them in auto and steel production. There will never be any shortage of steelworkers or autoworkers (as automation eliminates more and more factory jobs).

Today in the U.S. there is a much greater need for plumbers and electricians and firefighters, to name only a few categories where there is a shortage. What is the reason to attract workers away from plumbing and electrical work and firefighting, where they're needed, and into auto and steel manufacturing, where there is an oversupply of workers?

Unless you can answer this, you cannot claim there "are reasons to favor those policies" of paying autoworkers and steelworkers more than their market value. The only apparent reason is that these 2 job categories are very conspicuous, as traditional job types which have nostalgic interest, and we feel sorry for these workers, like they are heroes of some kind, similar to war heroes.

It's not that they aren't more valuable than some types, like cab drivers or fast-food workers, etc. But they're not worth the typical \$30/hour wage level plus generous union benefits. What they are worth is whatever level the market would pay them, determined by the competition and other market factors. The more they need the government to protect them against competition, the greater is the discrepancy between their real value and what they're paid.

No one can give a reason why these or any other special category of worker or business should be entitled to protection against competition.

Every policy proposal has reasons driving its support and every proposal has reasons against it.

Then tell us what the reasons are for giving certain producers protection against having to compete. All you're saying is that there must be a good reason for it or it wouldn't be so. So by that logic, everything the government does is automatically the right thing to do, exactly, and not one detail should be changed, because whatever it is now has to be right because there has to be a reason for it, even though no one can say what the reason is.

We're entitled to an explanation why job-seekers should be drawn away from firefighting and plumbing and electrical work, where there's a shortage, and into auto and steel manufacturing, where there is no shortage. This is what we're doing, under protectionists like Trump and Biden and Sanders, and you can't give any reason for it, other than to just say "Every policy proposal has reasons driving its support" and so it must be the right thing to do. I.e., this system is "the best of all possible worlds," so don't question it.

What category? My proposal is that no one should be paid more than their market value or be protected against having to compete, or protected from the forces of supply-and-demand. You're not answering why some categories of producers, e.g., steelworkers and autoworkers, should be protected against competition and paid more than the supply-and-demand value of what they produce.

It is an example of "crybaby economics".

What is? According to you, it is "crybaby economics" for the IRS to require the super-rich to pay what they owe. Or it's "crybaby economics" to want some tax loopholes eliminated. According to you, all taxpayer loopholes should be preserved, no matter what, and anyone who suggests eliminating a tax loophole is a "crybaby" for wanting those super-rich to pay a "larger share" -- because to ever require a "larger share" is "crybaby economics" according to you:

Once you utter "deserve a larger share", it is "crybaby economics"

Your "maximizing the benefits to everyone" standard is ill-defined handwaving to justify your normative economics (or what people call "political views).
What is "ill-defined" about maximizing benefit to people?
"Benefits" are ill-defined. How are those "benefits" measured.
Of course in "Economics" it's not precise to quantify the "costs and benefits" and measure exactly how much harm and benefit is gained in every decision or every action taken. You could debunk any policy or action or any decision ever taken by any decision-maker, ever in history, by just saying they don't have a perfect method to scientifically measure each cost or benefit.

But we have to make the decisions somehow, and there are ways to approximate the costs and benefits. And measurements in dollars (or other monetary units) are used, as a convenience, to try to simplify it. Figures like GDP are used -- they are not precise, and there are philosophical shortcomings with any such quantities, or with "dollars" or other such units of measure. But the estimates are useful, and we have to use some measures or quantities for making the judgments.

It should not be difficult for you to understand that the demand for firefighters and plumbers today is greater than the demand for steelworkers. These basic facts can guide us in figuring out what the best policies are, even though we cannot precisely quantify all the costs and benefits of every act or decision. If you demand such precise measurement for every decision or judgment made, then there can never be any economic decision about anything.

You are not arguing against anything I've said, but against every economic decision or public policy ever made in history by anyone of any ideological camp.

Why are you against people benefiting? What do you favor instead?
I m not against people benefitting as a general rule. I am simply pointing out you are unwittingly displaying a blatant double standard.

Whatever you mean by that, I'll try to avoid doing it in the future.

In the meantime, why don't you make yourself useful and explain why certain categories of producers should be given special benefits the rest of us have to pay for, like protection against having to compete, and like being paid more than their supply-and-demand value in the market.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Teacher! Teacher! I have one. We favor some outcomes in a society over others because the charter of the system, our system, prescribes we do so.