Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

What it's called, and lines on a map, is not what it IS.

 

I am objectively correct:

From YOUR OWN SOURCE:

"Most criticism points out that neoclassical economics makes many unfounded and unrealistic assumptions that do not represent real situations. For example, the assumption that all parties will behave rationally overlooks the fact that human nature is vulnerable to other forces, which can cause people to make irrational choices.


Therefore, many critics believe that this approach cannot be used to describe actual economies. Neoclassical economics is also sometimes blamed for inequalities in global debt and trade relations because the theory holds that such matters as labor rights will improve naturally, as a result of economic conditions."

 

IP monopolies are a government regulation. I'm not sure what they have to do with the social science of economics, which is the study of how people use scarce means to achieve their ends.

 

Are you saying that Somalia doesn't have a government? You might want to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia

 

why not given that you need land to build a factory

 

I can't answer that because I don't know any "naturally violent liberals".

I did say that but it is completely out of context. Provide the context and then if you have a question I may reply.

 

Yes, that is my source that cites. There are critisms listed for every

Sigh.

Yes, it states these are the critics belief but that in no way negates the point that was made by @Longshot that "It is a social science, like psychology and sociology" and does not invalidate the fact that it is the most widely accepted approach to economics today (neoclassical being a subset). The reason is that it is based upon the most solid foundations of axioms and assumptions in the field of economics. It is more widely accepted than the quackery of Marx and George.

Economics (which includes the neoclassical approach) is indeed a social science, as list here and here.

 

More blather and sarcasm from the historically ignorant.

That's all they are good for ...

 

You don't know any naturally violent liberals? How do liberals make the state bigger and the individual smaller if not at gunpoint?

 

If you don't think it's voodoo please explain exactly why rather than call names like a child

 

Let the person who accused Marx of Voodoo Economics explain why first! Their remark was just one-line sarcasm - and should be forbidden since they are cluttering this site with useless, spiteful commentary.

And YOU are not spared either, since you do the very same! Can't stand the heat of bonafide and substantiated exchange of commentary, can you ... ?

 

They can't "spend less" because there are necessary-mandatory expenditures that they have to fund.

The brilliant minds at MIT had quantified the cost of living in every county in the United States with the MIT Living Wage Calculator and those are mandatory expenditures, not subjective BS guesses of how much it costs to live. While not reviewing every single county in the United States a rough "average" is that it costs a single person about $21,000 per year to meet their minimum mandatory and necessary expenditures. If they're only earning $18,000/yr and receiving no outside source to cover expenditures then every year they go $3,000 deeper into debt.

This crap that some put forward that they should "just spend less" is never accompanied with how. Is the landlord going to only accept 75% of the rent? Not likely. Are the utility companies going to accept partial payments and simply ignore the unpaid balance? Not likely. Will the market only charge them $75 for there $100 purchase at checkout? Isn't going to happen.

We don't have "hyper-regulation" and the crony capitalism is favoritism for the wealthy at the expense of the workers by our government.

 

Economics in my country is predominantly taught in socialist institutions by socialists.
In order to pass you have to say what they say.

There are opposing schools of thought in economics.
It is not an empiric science like physics. There is not an empirically correct answer.
Only opinions and best guesses.

So no one can ever be proved wrong.

The bias here is to support the validity a model of economics that advances your own self interests.
So if like me you learnt economics outside of school, from sources not funded by taxation, not provided socially but rather provided liberally, your teachers will be expected to have bias in opposition to those others.


I boil it down to this.

Economics, vs politics.

Economics is the study of human behaviour. Trend spotting.
Politics is the attempt to control human behaviour. Trend setting.

So politicians use economics as tool for persuasion, but economists use it as a tool for measuring.

 

For me the fundamental difference is liberalism vs socialism.
Right wing advances the primacy of the individual over the collective. Left wing advances the primacy of the collective over the individual.

As a right winger, I believe that by and large everyone can be relied upon to serve their self interests.
And that all of us, are united by this. We all do it.
And so, acting entirely in our own self interests we can co-operate with each other to mutual gain.
If we both see our self interests in an action, we may both take the same action at the same time. Freely and without the need for coercion.

While in socialism, the collective good is considered higher than the individual good.
So we may sacrifice the good of the one for the many. Some people may be forced to act against their self interests for the benefit of others.

 

If rent and utilities are too high, they can get a roommate or two or three to split the rent and utilities.

Food bill too high? A 50 pound bag of rice plus 50 pound bag of pinto beans can be had for $150.

This bit about "mandatory expenditures" is bunk.

 

The Dodd-Frank bill alone has resulted in 22,000 pages of regulations. That's called hyper-regulation, and hyper-regulation and cronyism are failing. We need freer markets, less regulation, and sound money.

 

I would suggest to you that the economics suggests that people won't do this.
That you will get a place of your own so you can get laid. Fill it full of costly kids and sexy women.

I suggest to you that if you live on minimalist food, you won't attract a woman.

And so while people could live this way, they usually don't.
And what economics describes is not how we could do something, but how we do, do something.

Plus if you are trying to sell a life of poverty to me, I'm not buying.
I'll find a better solution.

(I hope I will anyway).

 

So they're not mandatory expenditures, as @Shiva_TD claims, but are optional expenditures. The whole minimum mandatory expenditures idea is bunk.

 

I haven't checked out this Bill.
Essentially, we need to watch both big companies and governments. Governments need watching most, big companies far less.
However, for many of us our preferred route to watching over big companies, is bigger government. Someone big enough to kick their arses.
Which leaves us wide open to government corruption. Which indeed is the major economic problem in most societies.
Over regulation as you put it, or unfavourable regulation.

 

I would argue that we don't need most of these regulations at all. Why do we need a Dodd-Frank bill? Don't we already have a common law body of contract law? We simply need a legal system where if a corporation trespasses against you or violates its contract with you that you can get a legal remedy in court.

 

By default I am unsympathetic to regulation.
I don't like it.

I don't like that it takes me 2 months to get government compliance to do 1 month of work.
Ridiculous.

I'm pretty minimalist myself.
But not Spartan.
I have my luxuries. I've got my expenditure down to about £8,000 a year.
I live in a big house (shared), drive a big (old) car. I have clean clothes (unbranded), regular private dental care some cheap hobbies and as many days off work as I can afford.

I can go less than this. I can move in with mum. Grow my own produce and so on.

But I'm not willing to. In the end with nothing in this life for me. Nothing to look forward to and no future. I will just give up. Stop eating.
So I need more. I have a human need beyond subsistence living. I need some pride and some motive and some good times and most of all I need to feel that I am getting ahead. Doing something to make my lot better each day. Subsistence isn't enough and it certainly not enough to attract a mate and support her through pregnancy and support children there after.

It's not enough. In order to live I need more. I need hope.

 

I don't care whether someone is spartan or not. The dispute between @Shiva_TD and me is that he wants to use the force of government to make sure someone receives what he is calling "mandatory minimum" expenditures. My position is that one's expenditures are dependent upon one's lifestyle choices. Unless a person has already tried having several roommates or eaten on the cheap, it's not right to use government force to confiscate other people's money and give it to him.

 

And I agree.

I don't ever think it's right for the government to confiscate money. I call that theft.

However, living the way you describe is not OK with me. Not an acceptable solution to my woes.

The government isn't my route out of this, but if it offers one and people take it, good for them.
For me however, with my ideology, government is more likely to be the cause of my problems than any solution,

 

If I do the same thing provide an example or admit with your silence or attempts to change subject you can't

 

Well, you obviously don't need to.

My point is that a lot of proponents of social welfare programs and/or minimum wages purport that people need $x per month to survive. But that includes money for cigarettes and going to their local every afternoon. People are able to survive on a lot less.