Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

No, the people believe what the government wants them to believe, whether it is about the constitution or otherwise.

 

The government is the people in a democracy

 

The government wants you to believe that.

 

Ok. Prove that

 

Bleachbit runs continuously on my computer. I ain't no Hillary Clinton.

 

Then you can't. Ok

 

There is the endless disputes between philosophers related to Thomas Hobbes v John Locke but Locke's arguments came after Hobbes and Locke effectively disputes Hobbes in his arguments. As Locke points out nature does not designate that one individual is superior to another while Hobbes argues that an individual, in seeking "power after power" can self-appoint themselves to be superior to and to subjugate others to their will and control which is basically the "might makes right" ideology of tyranny.

So the person that desires tyranny (individuals constantly exercising their personal power to subjugate and harm others) would cite Hobbes while those that oppose tyranny preferring instead liberty and freedom (all people are equal and no one has any authority granted to them to subjugate or harm another person) then they would cite Locke.

In the case of the United States the ideological founders choose John Locke in establishing the political and social ideology upon which our nation is founded. That ideology is contained in two lines of the Declaration of Independence* that all of the original "states", as representatives of the people, agreed upon. Arguably the ideology of our nation could be changed but the same criteria (concurrence of all the states as the representatives of the people) would need to be imposed. As it stands today to be an American is to believe in the ideology established for the nation and that's based upon the natural rights of the person.

* The enumerated social and political ideological foundation of the United States:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (nature) with certain unalienable (natural) Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (people), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Unfortunately there have always been men of power that followed the ideology of Hobbes, opposing the ideology of equality and freedom for all that the United States was founded upon, which is why oppression and tyranny continues to exist both within the United States and in our international actions.

 

I don't believe what the government wants me to believe so obviously I don't believe this statement. I'm more interested in seeking out the facts than I am in believing someone else's opinions that can often be based upon half-truths, myth and superstition..

 

People and animals have a need to "use and consume" from nature to survive but have no need to "own" anything. We have a right to survival (support) and comfort but not a right to infringe upon another person's identical right to survival (support) and comfort.

For example a family might need to use 40 acres of land to grow crops and raise animals for food and to exchange for other non-farm items they require for their survival (support) and comfort but if they stop growing crops and raising animals for food and to exchange for non-farm items they might require for their survival and comfort then they no longer have need for that land. It is only the providing for their survival (support) and comfort that allows them to use the land for that purpose.

Once the land is no longer being used for survival (support) and comfort it would be wrong to deny someone else the use of that land for their survival (support) and comfort because you have "title of ownership" to the land. The denial of the use of unused land based upon statutory title of ownership infringes upon their right of survival (support) and comfort.

 

Hobbes had it right. Locke uses a lot of what he thought things should be; the US's version of "natural rights" were little more than a grocery list of their grievances against the King of England. If they believed what they said they believed, there would have been no 3/5ths compromise. If the Constitution were written today, "No quartering of troops" would be replaced by "No tracking my pornhub activity". It is relative and pragmatic to the times one lives in which is why the Constitution is spun as a "living document". Its meaning has changed over time, under the circumstances on the ground. It is little more than the unending battle between those with power and those upon whom that power is exercised. It is man's being born in a perpetual state of war.

 

if so then everybody would dream to rent rather than to own. Still waiting for a post from you that makes sense.

 

Recalculating................

Economics classes and courses in the US are strictly capitalist economic courses. Just try to find any discussion of surplus value in economics. That is the foundation and basis of Marxian economics, and so you don't find it in capitalist economics.

 

And they don't teach Marxian economics. It's all capitalist.

 

There has never been communism anywhere. Try again.

 

True. And that is evidence that this is not a democracy and we have no significant democracy.

 

There is not "capitalist economics" or "Marxian economics". There is only economics: The study of how people make use of scarce means to achieve their ends. Remember, economics is a behavioral science.

 

I believe you mean Surplus Labor Value, which they don't discuss because it has been long disproven as nonsense.

 

Of course capitalist economics is not labelled "Capitalist Economics". But it is. And there is no mention of surplus value.

 

Agreed. The Marxians never mention Surplus Flour Value either. A baker buys flour for $2 a pound and then sells a one pound loaf of bread for $5. Why doesn't the flour vendor get to keep the $3 of Surplus Flour Value?????

 

No, that is a related term. And if it is nonsense, prove it. Surplus value is real or the capitalist couldn't figure a profit.

 

What does surplus value have to do with the social science of economics, which is the study of how people use scarce means to achieve their ends? Why SHOULD they mention it?

 

For the same reason that they mention labor cost, capital expenditure, cost of money, and overhead costs.... it's all part of the subject. But they don't like the sound of "surplus value" so they hide it in other terms. Yet singling it out and discussing it provides a different perspective.

 

Labor cost, capital expenditure, cost of money, and overhead costs are real things. They are the cost of acquiring the means to achieve one's ends. They are are things that a person writes a check for. Surplus value isn't in the same category. It's a political term, not an economic term. It has no place in the social science of how people use scarce means to achieve their ends.

 

No, the capitalist gets his profits from the delay he is willing to wait for a return on his investment. He invests money today in a capitalist venture in the hopes of getting a greater return in the future. Everyone else--the workers, for example--get paid immediately. They don't have to wait all the way until the final sale of the product to collect their wages, and the capitalist sacrifices his money in the short term to advance the workers their wages while waiting until the final collection of revenue to recoup his investment.