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

[crazy canuck]

China's productivty has exploded once they began to actually implement free market policies, in fact. Their productivity lagged the rest of the world until just recently (relatively). They are actually evidence for the opposite of what you are saying.

You are seriously going to argue that the massive explosion in human productive output in the last century is caused by something other then free market capitalism? What might that be?

Technological advancement, maybe? Now, you might argue that that's caused by free market capitalism, and sure, that may be partly so, but I wouldn't put all this advancement and increase in productivity as solely caused by capitalism. I would say that social development, in particular towards freer society, is a bigger cause. After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode. In the recent years, there are also increasingly many indicators that allowing capitalism to freely control the terms and conditions of work is not good for productivity - it has been found that shorter work hours increase productivity, for example.

One would have to ignore the significant funding governments give to scientific endeavors to suggest that something called the free market is solely responsible for innovation. 

This is why it is such a waste of time to bother engaging with you. Nobody said anything about the free market being solely responsible - you just make shit up, constantly. It is just dishonest.

I was responding Solmyr's post that one might argue that tech advancement is caused by free market capitalism.  Please take more time to read what others are posting.

edit:  and dare I ask what you think the word progressive means, now that you claim to be one.  I am surprised someone who argues free market capitalism is the answer would make such a claim.  But maybe we have completely different understandings of those concepts.

[Berkut]

I think you have to really read my posts very, very selectively to get the idea that I am not progressive, even in the context of this thread.

Which makes me wonder if for some people, the very idea that someone could be arguing in favor of the the power of the free market to drive productivity defines them as not being progressive?

[Zoupa]

I don't know who Robert Reich is. As you've probably noticed over the last 20 years, I'm pretty well versed in American politics/culture. So you might be overstating that dude's influence/importance.

I've yet to hear Sanders say "Capitalism is the problem". I'm sure he said something like "unfettered capitalism is the problem". His main proposals boil down to a living wage and universal healthcare, stuff that every other western democracy has achieved (with varying successes depending on your metrics).

So in conclusion, I think you're inventing a strawman to argue against. You of course have the right to be "annoyed the shit out of me" about what you think the "left" gets wrong about economics, but might I suggest focusing your energies instead on preventing your country from becoming a fascist failed state.

Just a thought.

[Eddie Teach]

Clinton's sec Labor I think.

[Zoupa]

So a Secretary of Labor from 6 administrations ago...

[Berkut]

I don't know who Robert Reich is. As you've probably noticed over the last 20 years, I'm pretty well versed in American politics/culture. So you might be overstating that dude's influence/importance.

I would certainly dispute the idea that you are at all well versed in American politics. You are well versed in this kind of narrative of American politics that most Americans have very little recognition of - comments like telling me I should focus on preventing the US from becoming a "failed fascist state" are a fine example of that in fact. In any case...

Robert Bernard Reich (/raɪʃ/;[2] born June 24, 1946) is an American economist, professor, author, and political commentator.[3] He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, as well as serving as the United States Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 under President Bill Clinton.[4][5] He was a member of President Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board.[6]

Reich has been the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley since January 2006.[7] He was formerly a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[8] and professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor), Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

If you don't know who he is, I suggest perhaps that is more evidence that you are not particulary as "well versed" as you imagine.

I've yet to hear Sanders say "Capitalism is the problem". I'm sure he said something like "unfettered capitalism is the problem".

Unfettered capitalism is *a* problem, but it is not THE problem.

Capitalism and the free market have been shown to be the solution to the historic problem of "A lot of people live in abject poverty, what should we do about that?". Not the only part of the solution of course - technology, liberal democratic ideals, lots of other things go into it as well. But the simple reality is that if you want people to have more food and clothes and education, *producing* more of all those things is almost certainly the most important part of achieving those goals.

And the world has in fact achieved a lot of those goals, and to pretend that the data that shows a consistent rise in human overall quality of life right along with that rise in human production driven by the engine of the free market is somehow not real....well that is EXACTLY the problem I am talking about.

His main proposals boil down to a living wage and universal healthcare, stuff that every other western democracy has achieved (with varying successes depending on your metrics).

And those are good proposals. Mostly.

But he should couch them in terms of what the market can bear, not on some polyanna view on how the world ought to be. We should have universal health care because we are the beneficiaries of a free market economy that has been spectacularly successful at increasing the GDP such that we can afford to have universal healthcare.

Just like we didn't have universal education for most of human history - because we could not afford it. Just like we didn't have universal not starving to death for most of human history - because we could not afford it.

So in conclusion, I think you're inventing a strawman to argue against. You of course have the right to be "annoyed the shit out of me" about what you think the "left" gets wrong about economics, but might I suggest focusing your energies instead on preventing your country from becoming a fascist failed state.

Just a thought.

Thanks. I will keep that in mind.

Funny how mad the crazy left gets if you even hint that maybe they should look at data and facts. Odd, that.

[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.

[The Minsky Moment]

So a Secretary of Labor from 6 administrations ago...

Yes but he's famous for being a talking head. Wrote lots of books, on TV all the time.  Sort of the left answer to Larry Kudlow, although smarter than Kudlow and without the drug problem.

[crazy canuck]

So a Secretary of Labor from 6 administrations ago...

He writes for the Guardian and has been a prof at Berkeley for a number of years.

Not completely surprised you have not heard of him, he is not one of the usual talking heads on US channels although he does get some air time.  I follow the guy on social media platforms.  I think he makes a lot of good points.

[crazy canuck]

I think you have to really read my posts very, very selectively to get the idea that I am not progressive, even in the context of this thread.

Which makes me wonder if for some people, the very idea that someone could be arguing in favor of the the power of the free market to drive productivity defines them as not being progressive?

Ok, rather than assertion, explain to me how someone who believes in something called free market capitalism, which by definition is a proponent of no or limited government intervention can also be a progressive who by definition believes government intervention of some sort is necessary and good.

This must be another of those terms that changes meaning after it hits the American border.

[grumbler]

Technological advancement, maybe? Now, you might argue that that's caused by free market capitalism, and sure, that may be partly so, but I wouldn't put all this advancement and increase in productivity as solely caused by capitalism. I would say that social development, in particular towards freer society, is a bigger cause. After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode. In the recent years, there are also increasingly many indicators that allowing capitalism to freely control the terms and conditions of work is not good for productivity - it has been found that shorter work hours increase productivity, for example.

Russia didn't move towards a free market economy, and that was why their economy didn't take off.  They moved towards crony capitalism, which is the opposite of market capitalism. 

I have no idea what social development, in particular towards freer society means in economic terms.  Markets provide freedom in economics.

Companies that employ working conditions that reduce productivity go out of business in a market economy.  Lately, many have been able to stay afloat through vertical and horizontal expansion (like, say, Amazon) but Amazon can't keep drivers and warehouse workers while treating them like that, in a growth economy.  Economic stagnation (like that in countries that eschewed market economics) is what allows firms to treat workers like shit.  Soviet firms were not employee-friendly, for instance.

[Zoupa]

Funny how mad the crazy left gets if you even hint that maybe they should look at data and facts. Odd, that.

Sorry, just trying to understand your little bubble here, but are you calling me crazy and saying I'm acting all mad?

Sigh...

[crazy canuck]

Funny how mad the crazy left gets if you even hint that maybe they should look at data and facts. Odd, that.

Sorry, just trying to understand your little bubble here, but are you calling me crazy and saying I'm acting all mad?

Sigh...

I really wish I knew how to post a meme of Homer Simpson saying - Free Market Capitalism - the cause of and solution to all society's problems.

[grumbler]

Why don't you head down to the nearest food bank with your charts and yell at those people that they should be thankful they're not starving.

Why would I do that?

Because Zoupipoo loves red herrings?

[Berkut]

Why don't you head down to the nearest food bank with your charts and yell at those people that they should be thankful they're not starving.

Why would I do that?

Because Zoupipoo loves red herrings?

I wonder if Zoupa has ever actually been at a food bank because he actually needs food from one?

I have. I grew up in poverty. I remember eating dinner at the church because we had no food in the house. I remember being mortified in elementary school because I had to go in shoes that had holes in them, or clothes that we got from the donated clothing places.

I sure do love getting a sanctimonious lecture about food banks and welfare and charity. They have so much to teach me!