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. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is your standard troll and I'm not going to bite. You have been found wanting and I appreciate you aren't happy with the dissonance. We have capital gains as rent. I've repeatedly mentioned that. You repeatedly denied it, until you referred to a Georgist piece that made the very same claim (which also made it clear that they could be taxed heavily). It is of no surprise that you aren't able to understand the nature of that rent, where economic activity is necessarily destroyed, and apply it to the labour market. The Georgist script simply has no understanding of such markets.

    Your attempt at referring to deadweight losses was laughable. You've got yourself in a position where you believe taxing rent creates rent. Even for you, that's taking contempt for logic to the next level ;)
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your usual trolling.
    Consisting of rent, as I said, not the source of rent as you incorrectly claimed.
    False, of course.
    OK, so you cannot tell the difference between "could" and "should."
    I proved your claim that hiring people to work destroys economic activity is wrong and absurd.
    <yawn>
    ?? I said no such thing. That is, as usual, an outright fabrication on your part. I've stated many times that only privilege can create rent.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Back to your 'one liner' zero content routine. That's a shame. Now you clearly do not understand what deadweight loss means. It refers to how rent isn't just a redistribution effect, it also is destructive. We know that monopsony power is destructive as, given its generated by job search costs, there will be an increase in the equilibrium unemployment rate. Mutually beneficial exchange is not exhausted because, by reducing labour demand, rents are increased.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wrong. It doesn't refer to rent per se at all, but the effect of forcing markets away from equilibrium. Some rents do that, others don't.
    But that's not monopsony. You just can't seem to understand that.
    No, that's not rent.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for attempting content here, rather than utilising a content-free one liner routine. This is very useful in understanding the source of your knowledge deficiency. Your response here is amusingly straight out of the perfect competition textbook. It's based on the premise that, unless there are extra market interference, the market must achieve Pareto Efficiency. Deadweight loss cannot exist. Of course Econ 101 students would also be informed that, as you drop assumption to allow market power, deadweight loss develops as an equilibrium condition. To suggest such loss is about forcing markets from equilibrium shows a complete disregard for modern economics.

    My statement was perfectly correct. An economist, as she understands market equilibrium, cannot see this as simply redistribution of well-being (e.g. a lump sum transfer from one economic agent to another). Instead we have the market delivering inefficient profit that necessarily destroys a portion of the overall wellbeing pie. We dont see Pareto Efficiency and we necessarily see an inward shift in production possibility.

    Strip away your Georgist script and you're strikingly similar to the right wing. They too are typically incapable of appreciating the nature, and consequence, of monopsony. We see, for example, bogus claim that monopsony is rare and reliant on 'company town' rarity. Job search analysis proves otherwise. We also see a failure in understanding the standard rent outcome. Underpayment will indeed represent an inefficient redistribution from employee to employer. This inefficiency does indeed generate a deadweight loss, as equilibrium unemployment rises.

    Essentially we are only seeing how, by ignoring market power in the labour market, you are incapable of understanding rent
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2020
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, it has nothing to do with perfect competition. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, trying to sound like you know some economics, but in fact just relying on your readers' ignorance of the subject.
    No, it has nothing to do with Pareto Efficiency. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, trying to sound like you know some economics, but in fact just relying on your readers' ignorance of the subject.
    Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, trying to sound like you know some economics, but in fact just relying on your readers' ignorance of the subject.
    Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, trying to sound like you know some economics, but in fact just relying on your readers' ignorance of the subject.
    You mean complete disregard for your bull$#!+.
    So you again repeat your cretinous claim that hiring workers to perform productive labor reduces overall well-being.
    So, on Planet Zondo where you live, the more workers are hired to engage in production, the less is produced.

    Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
    You are the one who incessantly, relentlessly and incontinently spews the "Georgist" script.
    A market with thousands of buyers, none of whom accounts for more than 1% of the volume, is not a monopsony, sorry.
    No, we see that you have never identified an actual example of monopsony in the labor market, and never will.
    No, it proves you wrong.
    Correct: the failure on your part.
    Or it might, if wages in a labor market free of privilege constituted underpayment.
    Only if you accept your known-false assumptions.
    No, we are only seeing how you try to deprive the economic concept of rent of all meaning in order to obscure its actual nature.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2020
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I knew it wouldn't last and you'd return to your one liner bile. That's a shame. What we know is that you don't understand monopsony power. This is strange as I've already informed you: we don't need company towns, we just need firms to have wage making power. That is derived through job search and the models involved demonstrate that underpayment actually increases in smaller firms operating in apparently competitive industries. We also know that you are quite clueless over the nature of economic rent. This is despite me providing a clear definition which ironically agreed with the Georgist paper you provided.

    Its a shame that you don't know any economics. We could actually have a conversation if you did, rather than me repeatedly dismissing your content-free one liners.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. What we actually know is that YOU don't understand the difference between market participation costs and monopsony.
    Which is false.
    "Underpayment" meaning market wages that in your opinion should be higher.
    Translation: I have proved you are trying to vacate the concept of meaning.
    It was clear, all right: clearly designed to vacate the concept of meaning.
    No. Close examination of your exchanges on this forum demonstrates conclusively that you are not capable of having a conversation with anyone, ever.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero comment again. The idea that this is opinion is nonsense. It is factual that wage making power is monopsony power. It is factual that wage making power will generate underpayment. The firm merely needs to follow profit maximisation. Of course I've already told you all this. Its Econ 101 too, so no excuse for not understanding the repercussions of an upward sloping labour supply curve ;)
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No it isn't. It's just your opinion.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Its not actually anything to do with me. Its a well known understanding of supply and demand. I personally think the post-Keynesians have more to say about wages. However, it is simply an empirical fact that monopsony is supported (and, if you believe in supply and demand, firms must have wage making power).
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A misunderstanding, you mean.
    Except that you have never been able to identify the monopsonist in the labor market, and never will.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its really not a cunning idea to continue to fib. I've referred to how monopsonistic power is accepted to be the norm, referring both to theoretical and empirical evidence. Here's a paper for you to use to catch up: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0895330027300
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thank you for confirming that you have never been able to identify the monopsonist in the labor market, and never will.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please stop trolling. That article demonstrates how monopsony power is the norm. Of course its nothing new. Wage making power merely requires asymmetric information in job vacancies (which necessarily occurs)
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ??? This, from you?!?
    No it doesn't.
    Most wrong ideas are nothing new.
    Now if only you could get so exercised over a real problem....
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More trolling! Its a shame you can't go for content. You've deliberately misrepresented the paper. Given it demonstrates that monopsonistic power is achieved by either job search or worker preferences, using that to explain the well known empirical evidence into wage distributions rejecting the law of one price, it confirms what I've said. Asymmetric information on job opportunities is the norm. Worker heterogeneity is the norm. Monopsonistic power is therefore the norm.

    Now it could be that you don't understand supply and demand. Alternatively, you may reject supply and demand in preference for a Marxist perspective. We both know that neither is the case. That leaves...
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Non sequitur is the norm -- for you, that is.
    Or that you don't.
    Reality. Which you reject.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No content, just troll. If you can't respond to what has been said then just say so. Can you, for example, deny that job search frictions exist? If you can't, then monopsonistic power automatically exists.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Then it's meaningless.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again troll and no content. You were asked a very simple question. Do job search frictions exist? If they do, we know monopsonistic power is the norm.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And that if that is what you mean by "monopsony," it is meaningless and disingenuous trash you use to evade the real and
    S O L V A B L E problems that actually cause unemployment, low wages, and excessive income inequality.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From troll to rant? Its an improvement. I refer to the accepted definition, as illustrated by the publication provided. By ignoring this source of rent you only confirm that your position is hypocritical.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That definition was created specifically to conceal the nature of rent for the convenience of rentiers.
    <yawn> How many legs does a sheep have if you define the tail as a leg?
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2020
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your conspiracy theorising is getting more pathetic by the day. Its simple supply and demand. Any labour supply elasticity will allow wage making power and therefore rent.
     

Share This Page