What the left gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me

[Zoupa]

Glad to know you voted for Sanders twice then 

[garbon]

Why do we now have two threads about your views on what different sides of the political spectrum get wrong on economics? What was the goal here?

[Josquius]

In regards to Reich, I actually will walk back a little bit - I actually like the guy. I think his basic ideas are sound.

But his presence in the media is this constant attacks on capitalism without much nuance. I've read his pieces and his books, and his basic policy positions are fine, he is basically concerned about wealth inequality and the powers of corporations to pervert politics. All good stuff.

My intention was to use his rhetoric as an example of how the left seems to forget that not only have things improved radically (IE, we are actually winning and should be proud of that), but that the best way to get the poor to have more stuff is to in fact produce more stuff. That isn't the end of the fix of course, but I can pretty much guarantee that it is, by far, the most effective start of the solution.

And then you melt the ice caps and fuck up the planet and everyone is substantially worse off.
The more production = better quality of life stuff is the old consensus since god knows how long. Pretty sure even Marx was on board with this.
Now things are changing as we recognise this might have unforeseen side effects.

Wut?
This is the rights major blind spot. They're all about immediate cause and effect.
Close some loss making industries to save a few million? Pure common sense logic! Let's do it!... That the damage this brings about costs in the billions not to mention the massive human impact.... Well that's not to be considered.

The left meanwhile are all about not particularly obvious links between on the surface seemingly disconnected issues. For instance invest invest in society to reduce the crime rate.

This of course is a key advantage of the right. Their stuff is a lot more hit the nail with the hammer and easier to sell.

I'll hold you to your word: what are the second order effects of "investing investing in society to reduce the crime rate?"

The correlation between higher education levels, employment rates, etc... are well observed.

[Admiral Yi]

The correlation between higher education levels, employment rates, etc... are well observed.

Can you conceive of any negative second order effects?

[Josquius]

The correlation between higher education levels, employment rates, etc... are well observed.

Can you conceive of any negative second order effects?

Not beyond it costing money. Though cut backs in this sphere is one area where the typical conservative motto of penny wise pound foolish tends to really come into play.

[Solmyr]

And plenty of people argue against free markets and capitalism. Not all progressives by any means - but look at the rhetoric out of Robert Reich and the continual cries about the evils of capitalism in general.

Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, incidentally. I don't think anyone is arguing against (regulated) free markets, but capitalism clearly has a bunch of problems that have been especially visible in the recent couple of decades (e.g. placing shareholder value above any other considerations, ignoring climate change, etc.), and it's perfectly valid to argue against it.

[Syt]

And plenty of people argue against free markets and capitalism. Not all progressives by any means - but look at the rhetoric out of Robert Reich and the continual cries about the evils of capitalism in general.

Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, incidentally. I don't think anyone is arguing against (regulated) free markets, but capitalism clearly has a bunch of problems that have been especially visible in the recent couple of decades (e.g. placing shareholder value above any other considerations, ignoring climate change, etc.), and it's perfectly valid to argue against it.

Companies are (by nature, I'd argue) always keen on internalizing profits and externalizing costs. If they don't have to pay for long term effects of their business (e.g. environmental damage or climate change), there's no reason for them to work towards minimizing those effects beyond token efforts for positive PR.

[Admiral Yi]

Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, incidentally. I don't think anyone is arguing against (regulated) free markets, but capitalism clearly has a bunch of problems that have been especially visible in the recent couple of decades (e.g. placing shareholder value above any other considerations, ignoring climate change, etc.), and it's perfectly valid to argue against it.

Is it also a problem with capitalism when employees and consumers look out for their own interests?

[Solmyr]

And plenty of people argue against free markets and capitalism. Not all progressives by any means - but look at the rhetoric out of Robert Reich and the continual cries about the evils of capitalism in general.

Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, incidentally. I don't think anyone is arguing against (regulated) free markets, but capitalism clearly has a bunch of problems that have been especially visible in the recent couple of decades (e.g. placing shareholder value above any other considerations, ignoring climate change, etc.), and it's perfectly valid to argue against it.

Companies are (by nature, I'd argue) always keen on internalizing profits and externalizing costs. If they don't have to pay for long term effects of their business (e.g. environmental damage or climate change), there's no reason for them to work towards minimizing those effects beyond token efforts for positive PR.

True, and that's why such things should be criticized more and companies made to pay for damaging things they do.

[Syt]

Problematic when some companies have such market power at this point and the financial means to heavily influence political decision processes.

[Grey Fox]

Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, incidentally. I don't think anyone is arguing against (regulated) free markets, but capitalism clearly has a bunch of problems that have been especially visible in the recent couple of decades (e.g. placing shareholder value above any other considerations, ignoring climate change, etc.), and it's perfectly valid to argue against it.

Is it also a problem with capitalism when employees and consumers look out for their own interests?

Employees, no. Consumers, yes.

[Berkut]

And plenty of people argue against free markets and capitalism. Not all progressives by any means - but look at the rhetoric out of Robert Reich and the continual cries about the evils of capitalism in general.

Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, incidentally. I don't think anyone is arguing against (regulated) free markets, but capitalism clearly has a bunch of problems that have been especially visible in the recent couple of decades (e.g. placing shareholder value above any other considerations, ignoring climate change, etc.), and it's perfectly valid to argue against it.

It's perfectly valid to argue against the things about capitalism that you mention, and one can even argue that doing so is actually arguing IN FAVOR of better capitalism - a capitalism that actually captures and considers all the costs of doing business, rather then just some of them.

But arguing that capitalism itself is the problem is, well....idiotic. It is the very thing that has gotten us to a place where so many of the defining problems of humanity that the left is supposed to be motivated to improve are in fact at their very lowest points, and dramatically so.

Your argument, to me anyway, is like saying "Cars are the worst ever! We should get rid of them and we would all be better off!" in like 1950. Then when someone points out how great cars are, and wonders what alternative to them you are proposing, you say "Well, people get killed all the time when they crash and the brakes don't work well!". Well, lets get seatbelts and better testing and crumple zones and better designed highways. All of which we did, and now people dying in cars is certainly still a problem, but it happens at somethiing like 1/20th the rate it did then.

[garbon]

Your argument, to me anyway, is like saying "Cars are the worst ever! We should get rid of them and we would all be better off!" in like 1950.

Well we have people saying that now in 2021 on our forum.

[Berkut]

In regards to Reich, I actually will walk back a little bit - I actually like the guy. I think his basic ideas are sound.

But his presence in the media is this constant attacks on capitalism without much nuance. I've read his pieces and his books, and his basic policy positions are fine, he is basically concerned about wealth inequality and the powers of corporations to pervert politics. All good stuff.

My intention was to use his rhetoric as an example of how the left seems to forget that not only have things improved radically (IE, we are actually winning and should be proud of that), but that the best way to get the poor to have more stuff is to in fact produce more stuff. That isn't the end of the fix of course, but I can pretty much guarantee that it is, by far, the most effective start of the solution.

And then you melt the ice caps and fuck up the planet and everyone is substantially worse off.

So fix that problem as well.

But I can guarantee you that the solution to climate change is not going to be "produce less stuff". I promise you that is the case. We will either destroy the planet and end human civilization, or we will have to come up with a better solution.

And we know what that better solution is going to look like. In fact, we can see the outlines of it in the data right now.

Richer countries have more space to pollute less per capita, and the wealth to better internalize and deal with the costs of pollution and climate damage. Once again, the answer is not wishing the world and humans were somehow different then they are, but actually leveraging the very things we are good at.

The more production = better quality of life stuff is the old consensus since god knows how long. Pretty sure even Marx was on board with this.
Now things are changing as we recognise this might have unforeseen side effects.

The existence of unforeseen side effects has always been foreseen.

More production of stuff does equate to better quality of life. THis is not going to change. And in fact has been directly responsible for literally saving hundreds of millions of lives. Children's lives. People who would have died horribly, literally hundreds of millions of them, are alive today because of that entire "more production is better" idea.

That doesn't mean we ignore the externalities, but it does mean that the solution to those externalities is never, ever going to be "produce less stuff".

And therein lies the core of my issues with what I see as the crazy left. If we want Brazil to stop burning down their rain forests, then the answer to that problem is not rallies and demands that people not eat beef or sternly worded notes to Brazil. None of that is going to work.

You know what WOULD work? More technology. Figure out how to make it so we can make beef without needing to clear burn rain forests (for example).

Or if the rich nations find this a problem, then pony the fuck up - make it financially more lucrative for Brazil to not burn them down. Buy them. Lease them. Make the market work in our favor - align the incentives of the humans involved.

The historical data is clear. Make the world richer, and the world will spend more of that wealth on the poor. Richer countries spend more on social spending then poor companies. Rich countries are more willing to allocate resources towards clean energy then poor countries. The examples go on and on and on and on.

[Solmyr]

I can guarantee you that the solution to climate change is at least partly going to be "consume less stuff" which likely leads to producing less stuff as well.

And you seem to have a lot of faith in trickle down (if rich people get more then poor people also get more), and in a country's wealth correlating to the quality of its social spending. As it happens, the wealthiest countries like the US or China have significantly worse social programs than comparatively poorer European countries.