The problem of Capitalism

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by stan1990, Mar 13, 2019.

?

Do you agree that the main problem of Capitalism is of moral nature?

Poll closed Apr 12, 2019.
  1. Yes

    33.3%
  2. No

    50.0%
  3. Maybe

    16.7%
  1. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,019
    Likes Received:
    2,686
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the first time I've heard of DDN. I'm going to have a good look at it. Thanks for the tip. It's always nice to have a new angle to consider.
     
    Reiver likes this.
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did I say it was? Try not to be slack in the honesty stakes!

    I stated what is accepted in economics (Georgist fanatics can of course be excluded here). Monopsony power generates an inefficient redistribution from employee to employer. As predicted in rent analysis, this creates a form of inefficiency which destroys economic activity. It's of the same ilk as rent from monopoly, with that destructiveness understood through the concept of deadweight loss.
     
  3. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,716
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The actual perfect amount is transferred from employer to employee.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are the very last person in the world who can say that to anyone.
    Except that you cannot identify an example thereof, so even if it were true (it's not) it would be irrelevant.
    No, rent deceitfulness.
    LOL! And this is the child who says land is of trivial importance...
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You twin misrepresentation with ignorance of labour markets here. I've referred to job search frictions, as originally modelled by economists such as Burdett and Mortensen. Given this is a form of dynamic monopsony based on asymmetric information, all labour markets are affected. This is easily supported through empirical evidence. We see, for example, research into inefficiency wage distributions using stochastic frontier methods. We also see general analysis into wage differentials showing that, independent of any human capital considerations, the 'law of one wage' does not hold.

    There is never any economics in your replies. Once challenged, and with an inflexible Georgist script, you're forced into unimaginative churlishness. It is mere fact that monopsony will create rent. The economics confirms what we would expect: it is a redistribution which destroys economic activity.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    <yawn> The Law of One Wage was always bollocks. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with actual labor knows that.
    You know that is false.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    No it isn't. Rent is a specific form of economic advantage, and not all economic advantages are rent.
    But not everything that does that is rent. You can never seem to remember that.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the law of one price doesn't hold then monopsony conditions, by definition, must hold. Firms are wage makers, rather than wage takers. So, let's summarise. You didn't know that you accepted monopsony conditions were the norm, preferring instead to make utter ridiculous claim that monopsony is a Marxist construct.

    Back to your churlish repetition! It is profit based on an unfair redistribution from employee to employer. It is profit which destroys economic activity. To call it anything but rent merely demonstrates the irrelevance of Georgism.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    By what definition?
    Wrong.
    That means you will now make $#!+ up again:
    See? You just made that all up.
    An absurd non sequitur.

    You are a waste of electricity.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of monopsony: wage making power must mean monopsony power holds. Bit bleedin obvious really, but I appreciate the land ranting leaves no space for understanding of the labour market ;)

    Perhaps you forget the silly comments that you type? I suppose it would be rational. It would seem that, when confronted with economics you can't deal with (and we've seen that with neoclassical economics and monopsony), you dismiss it by saying that its Marxism. Bit silly really ;)
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's not a definition of monopsony, and it is a bald non sequitur fallacy. You like non sequitur fallacies a lot.
    An obvious non sequitur.
    Worthless yammering.

    <worthless garbage snipped>
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are only seeing how Georgism impairs economic understanding. That's a darn shame so it is!

    Traditional monopsony relies on one buyer. The market labour supply therefore is the same as the firms labour supply. Through the law of supply, we know that the supply is upward sloping and therefore the firm has wage making power. That power ensures that it can pay a wage below what should be paid according to productivity criteria. Market power has created a rent that destroys economic activity.

    Of course labour economic analysis has since shown that we can derive the same outcome through, for example, job search frictions. Even if there are many buyers of labour, a firm still faces an upward sloping labour supply. It has wage making power and it will use that power to benefit from destructive rent.

    By having zero understanding of the labour market, you guarantee a severely impaired understanding of rent. Bit of a shame really! ;)
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    More accurately, your blind, monomaniacal hatred of Georgism impairs your economic understanding.
    By definition. And you still haven't identified a single example of what you claim is pervasive. I'm guessing you won't.
    Productivity criteria do not determine what wage "should" be paid, except in your factually incorrect opinion. The Law of Rent determines what wage IS paid in a free market.
    Rent is not defined by reference to your subjective opinion of what wage "should" be paid, sorry.
    The same absence of rent, you mean.
    Nope. That's not rent. It's just supply and demand. By having zero understanding of the labour market, you guarantee a severely impaired understanding of rent. Bit of a shame really! ;)
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We know that the Georgist definition of rent is enfeebled. You were good enough to provide an article that discussed that and showed the importance of referring to aspects such as capital-gains. However, your lack of economic knowledge does not give you an excuse to ignore labour economics. Indeed, it ensures that you ignore the main source of rent in any developed nation with substantive production of good and services. We know that firms have wage-making power. We know that power generates a 'deadweight loss' redistribution from employee to employer. We have the standard definition of economic rent: a destructive profit, reflecting market power. This is quite different from 'normal profit' that reflects standard exchange criteria.
     
  14. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Big part of the problem is corruption. I agree with you.
     
    Thingamabob likes this.
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is necessarily a key part of capitalism, given market concentration and the blurring of public and private sectors. The US is the poster child for influence costs.
     
    stan1990 likes this.
  16. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,019
    Likes Received:
    2,686
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, that's pretty much the only (or fundamental) problem with any political philosophy. The opportunity for corruption is present in them all.
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    We know you are wrong about that and everything else.
    There is a difference, unknown to you, between referring to something and redefining it.
    Nope. We know they don't because there are so many of them, and none of them account for more than a low single-digit percent of the labor market.
    Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, that is not the standard definition, let alone a correct one.
    Garbage.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero content, as usual. The Georgist script really is low powered. Market power that enforces an inefficient redistribution of resource that destroys economic activity? That is rent. Bit feckin obvious really.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    False, as usual.
    But it isn't employers hiring wage labor, as you claim.
    Obviously wrong.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it is employers hiring wage labour. Has your Georgist script ensured complete incoherence?
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of course it isn't.
    Why do you feel you have to falsely claim I am a Georgist? Is it to avoid the responsibility of actually making a relevant response to anything I say?
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've already stated that the land obsessed do not like the term Georgist. They know that Georgism, after all, has been proven to be irrelevant. Indeed, it is 'enfeebled' as you kindly acknowledged. However, you rant about land and use that rant to hide from more involved comment (as illustrated by both your nonsensical comments over discrimination and monopsony). That is unfortunately a standard Georgist outcome..

    Perhaps you're actually learning the error of that land obsession? I do hope so.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And the honest do not like dishonest misuse of terms.
    I agree that Georgism -- the Georgist Single Tax -- is anachronistic. Why do you always falsely claim that I advocate it?
    No. That's a word you applied; it seems ridiculous to me.
    No; I merely decline to waste my time on trivialities that are literally orders of magnitude less important than landowner privilege.
    My comments were correct: discrimination and monopsony are trivially unimportant compared to landowner privilege. You just want to waste my time as well as your own on such trivialities because you have to find some way to avoid addressing the problem of landowner privilege.
    Why are you so obsessed with Georgism? You see Georgists hiding under your bed.
    I'm learning the error of attempting to have a rational exchange with you.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,578
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're asking for repetition. Georgism is land obsessed. You're actually hyper-Georgist, as you use land to ignore more important issues. I have to ask: what on earth derived your Georgist land obsession, such that you decided to ignore any notion of the labour market?
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why can't you ever remember that the astronomical value of land proves me right and you wrong?
     

Share This Page