Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Minimum Wage
Thread: Minimum Wage This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Dingo
Dingo


Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
posted May 11, 2004 06:02 AM

I have actually changed my opinion on this minimum wage issue.  I think we should raise minimum wage and possibily raise even more than that.  Right now there is alot of Inflation and we need to do something about it.  Gas now costs 2 dollars a gallon, and everything seems to be going up in price.  Today when I went to McDonalds, I noticed they raised their prices by about 50 cents.  Other places are also raising prices.  

I don't know how poor people are surviving these days, and I'm pretty sure it isn't easy for them.  So I now say raise minimum wage, and possibly raise wages for everybody.  Inflation is now, and we need to deal with it.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
posted May 11, 2004 06:32 AM

I think we should raise more production causes, and also the maintainiong of a steady resource in order to make poductions forever possible as we can.

Then we can forsake the government, because we can have everything. But dont forget, nothing moved changes the weight of the world.
____________
What are you up to

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted May 11, 2004 07:31 AM

bad

Quote:
Khaelo, you said that the capitalist economy was a bit too brutal, however this brutality keeps something that has been used in nature for aeons. Survival of the Fittest.  The competition will weed out all the other unsuccessful businesses.  

Exactly!  It breaks my heart to see a supposedly civilized society running its economy according to the law of the jungle.  You speak of businesses; I speak of people.  Some competition is necessary, but damnit! we should have more compassion.  We should know better than to leave our fellow humans in the dust.  We should know better than to indulge greed at the expense of human suffering.  But "businesses" (and the people who run them) can't be trusted to do the right thing.  History has shown that again and again and again.

The whole system makes me unspeakably angry, grieved, and frustrated.  Needless to say, I have no more (rationality) to contribute to this discussion.  ~
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted May 12, 2004 01:35 AM

Quote:
Imagine if all the big businesses were gone. All of them. Haven't you ever heard of the industrial revolution. Mass producing goods lowers the cost of the product.

First of all, more equal distribution has nothing to do with big businesses. I’m not against big businesses and mass-production, but I am against big corporative owners who exploit their workers who toil for them (in all cases of big business in a capitalist economy).

Quote:
There is a reason those people are at the top and own worldwide corporations. The people that own the big businesses are there, because they are talented at running the business.

No, no! Big mistake! The people that own the big businesses are there because either their father were there before them, or either because they’ve gotten there through suspicious deals (the mafia of the present), monopolistic positions, exploitatory policies or simply because they suck up their respective government’s a$$.
While the talented at running the business only work for them for a big salary, but the owners are still one class higher than corporate managers. The managers need skill, not money. Money comes later.
So, the capitalists are the predators that prey on the workers. The managers, marketing agents, lawyers etc. are the parasites that suck on the workers production surplus, because they themselves (agents, lawyers) don’t contribute to the production process; they are only involved in the distribution of the surplus among different companies and they don’t affect the production and demand in any way. And finally we have the last class – the workers; they are well… just totally f****d up.

Conclusion: We don’t need capitalist exploitation, in order to have mass-production. And, you still fail to prove how equal opportunity is achieved in a capitalist society.
(Oh, and don’t forget the animal spirits of business in world economics Khaelo mentioned.)

____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
RedSoxFan3
RedSoxFan3


Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
posted May 30, 2004 07:09 PM

I guess there is simply no good way to prove to a liberal that trickle down economics actually does work.

Oh and one more thing. If it's really that impossible to be a big businessman just by skill than why not take a look at Donald Trump. Just a few years ago, he was billions of dollars in the red. Now in four or five years, he has come out of the hole and is running stronger than ever. He has turned small businesses into multi-million dollar corporations. He just knows what he is doing and what it takes to run a business. So now that he has successfully built a multi-billion dollar corporation twice, do you still think that this isn't possible for anyone who tries to do this? To be honest most people don't think they could ever do such a thing and that is why they fail, because they never tried. The opportunities are there for everyone. Most just tell themselves that such a task is impossible.
____________
Go Red Sox!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted May 31, 2004 11:28 AM

Thats the way the cards are dealt to you when you force your hand into your own situation.
we all have to serve someone.
Most owners or managers,or any type of bosses are very greedy that run or own thier business over license or no.
They will exploit thier employees & they will find everyway possible to screw them so they can make more money while the employees will make less.
Why do you think they have thier brand new comaroes & boats & a nice house etc.
Not because of work but because we buy it for them so to speak.
Also they can get away with alot of stuff.
Calling the labor board is too risky if you want to lose your job also.
Sucks but the way it goes.
Deal with it, cant whine about it because we cant do much about it in certain businesses or trades.
Orless you want to make sacrafices.

____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted June 01, 2004 04:03 AM

RedSox,

First of all, I'm not a liberal. You're way too more liberal economically than I am.

Donald Tramp. I cant say i know much about him, but wasn't that a man who was filthy rich even before those 5 years ago, when he was "in the red"? If he made it through the crisis it's because someone else paid for that, did it for him, not because of his own sparkling talent.
I see you didn't understand my point about the owners and the employees.

Quote:
The opportunities are there for everyone. Most just tell themselves that such a task is impossible.

If you really belive this I can tell that you are an extremely naive person. Then how about we all go to a business college and all become billioners?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
ShacklesofWar
ShacklesofWar

Tavern Dweller
posted January 28, 2005 11:36 AM

Quote:
Aculias. Slamming Bush has nothing to do with this thread. How soon do you forget about 9/11? And during a recession, you must spend money to get out of the recession. The economy has picked up already and jobs are coming very soon. The only problem with our economy right now is California. The rest of the country is in good shape. I believe that the debt will soon be payed off. Bush will do a great job in these next four years of his presidency. The problem is that you cannot be so short-sighted. Many Americans do this all the time. They always look at what is happening now. They are in love with the quick fix and cannot see down the road.

Is it the national debt you are speaking about? In that case I think I might add something.

A lot of USA:s national debt is a constructed internal debt, which if the government wanted, could be written off.

Here´s how it works: Every department in the government gets a certain amount of money to spend every year. This amount is based upon what they spent the year before. So, if a department does´nt use all money one year, they will get less money next year. (Funnily enough it is much harder to get MORE money than the year before, but that is beside the point).
A lot of departments therefore seeks ways to spend all money, even if they don´t need to, so they can get the same amount of money next year, when they might need it.
The majority of the departments have money left at the end of the year, but there is one notable exception: The Military department, who always uses up every cent and keep asking for more.
And how do we solve this? A lot of deparments that has too much money, and a department that wants to spend it.
Why, they just "borrow" the money, don´t they?
Now everyone has used all their money and can get the same amount next year, and the Military can buy new cool weapons...
The problem is that the Military never pays back on their loans, as they use up all money, and wants more.
This way an internal constructed debt has been formed, and it will never be repaid. (But since it is the same tax money, the debt could be written off).

(Source: American Government class, High school)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EvilLoynis
EvilLoynis


Famous Hero
The Dark Shadow
posted January 28, 2005 03:04 PM
Edited By: EvilLoynis on 28 Jan 2005

  Oppertunities do exist for almost everyone If they have the skills, knowledge, contacts and time to take advantage of them.

  Now I live in a large city where the population is such that companies can keep ther wages very low because there is someone always in need of work that they don't have to pay well or even treat you right because it is always easier to hire someone else.  In big cities also it is difficult to find affordable housing.  I mean if your single and working even fulltime for min wage you better not even think of living in more than a single room.  And just forget about things like Cable or Innternet service.  One big thing that would help people without raising min wage would be to control rent prices more.  I mean up here in Toronto the average 1 bedroom apartment costs about $800 CAD a month...about $600 - $650 USD.  Even just sharing a 2 Bedroom apartment would cost at least $500 a month.  I mean then you have to figure things like Transportation and Food.  I mean you can just forget being able to afford a car on min wage.  Especially with insurance prices the way they are. Plus Jobs that pay minimum wage to there employees don't even have medical plans, or if they do you have to pay for them.  I mean I am lucky that in Toronto I have a pretty reliable public transportation system to get me to work or any where else I need to be.

  Let's face it in places other than big cities there is not as much demand for jobs so if you want the best workers you have to pay for them.  Raising the Minimum Wage would not have much effect in places other than big cities.


A Question for all of us:  How much of your monthly income, % wise, should you have to spend for the following?

Rent, Food, Transpo, Household, Misc....Feel free to add any you think of.
____________

"I am both selfish and instictive.  I value nature and the world around me as means to an end as well as an end in itself; at best I ... too long to display...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 28, 2005 05:51 PM

Not Much Said

Quote:
How much of your monthly income(%-wise) should you have to spend for the following:

Rent
Food
Transpo
Household
Misc....Feel free to add any you think of

My Opinion:

Rent = Household = 75%
Transportation = 10%
Food = 10%
Miscellaneous expenses/liesure = 5%
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted January 29, 2005 04:25 AM

Quote:
A lot of USA:s national debt is a constructed internal debt, which if the government wanted, could be written off.

That is a very simplistic and incorrect way of looking at things. First, the Departments dont owe money to each other. The government budget is projected each fiscal year, and each fiscal year, the US budget has huge deficits adding up to the national debt, meaning the balance is negative.
Second, a rather large part of the debt is owed to foreign subjects (slightly less than a half, which is a lot considering the huge debt US has) and thats the reason why EU and Japan are so upset for the Americans riding the fiscal apocalypse.
Third, even the debt that is owed to domestic subjects (mostly the US federal Bank, or what was the name) is significant, since it has to be paid off. They cant just sign it off since it would be a major crime done by the government.

Bottomline, no matter how you turn it, spending more than you produce is BAD! And dont trust all the bloody government propaganda you see that the debt is harmless. It cant be. I'm not really into economic machanisms and I cant analyze just what kind of concequences it might have, but its not a bright future, that I guarantee. Perhaps Defereni can explain more.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
EvilLoynis
EvilLoynis


Famous Hero
The Dark Shadow
posted January 29, 2005 07:01 PM

Quote:
Quote:
How much of your monthly income(%-wise) should you have to spend for the following:

Rent
Food
Transpo
Household
Misc....Feel free to add any you think of

My Opinion:

Rent = Household = 75%
Transportation = 10%
Food = 10%
Miscellaneous expenses/liesure = 5%



All I can say to this reply is that I hope you never have to live on your own and pay your own bills...lol.  I mean you didn't even put any money aside really for things like if you happen to get sick and need meds?  I also have to say that you must not have a life outside working.  You obviously don't want to have a girlfriend with only 5% of you earnings to spend on her.  I feel for you.
____________

"I am both selfish and instictive.  I value nature and the world around me as means to an end as well as an end in itself; at best I ... too long to display...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
RedSoxFan3
RedSoxFan3


Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
posted January 29, 2005 08:29 PM

Quote:

All I can say to this reply is that I hope you never have to live on your own and pay your own bills...lol.  I mean you didn't even put any money aside really for things like if you happen to get sick and need meds?  I also have to say that you must not have a life outside working.  You obviously don't want to have a girlfriend with only 5% of you earnings to spend on her.  I feel for you.


I know several people who live like this and have perfectly happy lives. You assume that every person in America can sit on a nest egg in case something happens. Well that only happens for very few people. The fact of the matter is that people really live only a few accidents away from losing everything. That's why we have family and friends to help each other out during hard times.

However raising the minimum wage, so that people will then be able to sit on a nest egg, simply does not work. This either A inflates the market, or B causes people to get laid-off, simple as that. However I do believe in raising the minimum wage as in response to market inflation.

However it's been proven time and time again that lowering the minimum wage creates jobs, so then obviously raising it will do the opposite.

The minimum wage is not out there so people can make enough money to have large sums of disposable income. In fact most of the disposable income out there is owned by only a small portion of the population. Minimum wage is out there so that the job market has a reference point of what absolute zero is. As I said before in large cities minimum wage is unecessary, because if there is a lack of available jobs, then raising the minimum wage will not hurt the problem, if there are too many jobs, then the demand for good employees will simply work itself out, so that the employers will be forced to give out wages greater than minimum wage.

Minimum wage in a stable balanced market should never come into effect. It should only be used as a safety valve, like having laws against bank rushing etc...
____________
Go Red Sox!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
DoddTheSlayer
DoddTheSlayer


Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
posted January 29, 2005 08:41 PM
Edited By: DoddTheSlayer on 29 Jan 2005

Over here in the UK ever since the min wage was introduced when Tony Blair first came to power. We have seen a steady, at times drastic increase in house prices.
I dont know if there is any connection, but what i do know is that when any governmemt raises the roof they always raise the ceiling and the majority are no better off. There is no such thing as improvement without cost so be carefull what you wish for.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 30, 2005 12:56 AM
Edited By: Consis on 29 Jan 2005

Mistaken

Quote:
All I can say to this reply is that I hope you never have to live on your own and pay your own bills. I mean you didn't even put any money aside really for things like if you happen to get sick and need meds? I also have to say that you must not have a life outside working. You obviously don't want to have a girlfriend with only 5% of you earnings to spend on her. I feel sad for you.

EviLoynis,

Please don't feel sad for me. You don't understand. I spend all of my time with my children while my wife works. When she comes home we spend time together. That is my social life. I don't put money aside for getting sick or medication because my wife's insurance pays for myself and all her children. Being an employee for a large company, you are then able to sign an agreement that lets the company pay for most of your healthcare. Sometimes they will offer many different benefits to encourage their employees to stay working for them. For example the vascectomy I recently underwent; that was free because it was covered by the company.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted January 31, 2005 02:48 AM
Edited By: terje_the_mad_wizard on 30 Jan 2005

I have ambivalent feelings about minimum wages.

On one hand, I have concerns for those who have to work three jobs to feed their children and themselves. These people clearly deserve to be paid better, since it's their labour that increases the value of the product they are manufacturing (Marxist/Kantian understanding of labour, btw ). Also, we have to ask ourselves: What came first - high wages or economic growth? (I'll come back to this in a second.)

On the other hand: When the capitalists treat the people like slaves (and pays them accordingly), it's more likely that the people will realize that they are being treated in a way they can't tolerate. Then they will revolt. Even old Otto von Bismarck understood this: He pressed for social reforms in Germany in the late 1800s, cos he saw that radical (revolutionary) socialists were getting the support of the proletariat when the capitalists paid them too low wages. Marx and most of the German leftwingers were against these social reforms, since they (correctly) saw it as a setback for the revolution.

Since my revolutionary agenda is very moderat, and almost non-existant, I must say that all in all I support higher wages.
Even though the working classes have a tendency to vote for rightwingers when they begin to make more money... And then the rightwingers reduces their wages again, and the workers can no longer afford the living standard they have now become accostomed to.

RSF:
Quote:
Many local businesses pay teenagers minimum wage. If you were to raise the minimum wage, then you would basically be putting more money into the pockets of teenagers and taking it away from the local businesses.

I said I would get back to the issue of what came first of high wages and economical growth.
In RSF's example, the teenager, being paid more money, will be able to but himself more stuff. This stuff has to be made by someone, and when the teenager increases his consumption, the manufacturers of the products the stuff teenagers buy can increase their production, and hire more people, which in turn will increase consuption, and so on... What the "local businesses" lose in increased wage costs, they gain in incom with the increased consumption (directly or indirectly).

FDR understood this. During the Great Depression, he worked to increase the purchasing power of the middle and working classes through large public projects. In this way he managed to lift the US, and through that the world, out of the Great Depression. And all thanks to John Maynard Keynes, the great social democrat and economist

RSF:
Quote:
However it's been proven time and time again that lowering the minimum wage creates jobs, so then obviously raising it will do the opposite.

The way I've learned this, it's been proven time and again that raising the minimum wages increases a country's total production (see my examples above for more indepth stuff on this...).
Also, when they are paid properly (and this is true; Taylorism died in the '30s, at least in the rest of the world) the workers can consentrate on just one job, and will thus become more focused at this one, and doing a better job. Also, social security makes workers relax, stopping to concern too much about the future, and so they are able to concentrate more on the job at hand.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted January 31, 2005 04:39 AM

Quote:
However raising the minimum wage, so that people will then be able to sit on a nest egg, simply does not work. This either A inflates the market, or B causes people to get laid-off, simple as that. However I do believe in raising the minimum wage as in response to market inflation.

You’re so full of contradictions and conjectures. If raising minimum wage causes inflation, why would you then raise minimum wages to combat inflation? To cause even more inflation?!
Also, nest egg (i looked it up, and was astonished to find out, it means “saving”?! Minimum wage (minimum, for the lowest strata. That’s why it’s called that way.) wont get people to save their money, but to survive without feeling so miserable.
All this points to: A either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or B you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Go back and read this thread, give it a thought, read some more, and then give me reasonable arguments i can work with.

There is no general law applying to inflation/deflation/wages and all. Economics isnt an automated idiotic system, which gives the desired effect every time you pull the lever up or down. In order to act accordingly, the government must analyze the causes of the problem. From a macroeconomical aspect, there are cases when raising minimum wage is counter-productive, creating more unemployment (if the economy is not competitive enough on the global market), but it also can be stimulating for the production. It’s a double-edge sword, like everything in economics.
However, minimum wage is always an indicator of how far society has progressed in its economical development, and it especially highlightens its social-humanitarian dimension. Theoretically, raising the minimum wage would (almost) always be welcomed for a hermetically closed economy. But, the huge disparity between world economies, makes even the most noble intention of improving the standard of the poorest workers to be often painful and unwanted. The world is a victim of its own past and present ruthless colonial-capitalist economic policies, and now we have to pay the price.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted January 31, 2005 11:34 PM
Edited By: terje_the_mad_wizard on 1 Feb 2005

Quote:
Quote:
However raising the minimum wage, so that people will then be able to sit on a nest egg, simply does not work. This either A inflates the market, or B causes people to get laid-off, simple as that. However I do believe in raising the minimum wage as in response to market inflation.

You’re so full of contradictions and conjectures. If raising minimum wage causes inflation, why would you then raise minimum wages to combat inflation? To cause even more inflation?!

Sorry to correct you Svarog, but he actually said "in response to market inflation", which means that they adjust the nominal value of minimum wages so that in real value, it stays the same as before when inflation raises prizes... (I hope I made myself understood here. I have my doubts about my ability to put things into words )

Quote:
There is no general law applying to inflation/deflation/wages and all. Economics isnt an automated idiotic system, which gives the desired effect every time you pull the lever up or down.

Here, you are correct . Actually, the economic principle of equilibrium and supply-demand mechanisms is based on a principle from physics, about levers and stuff, which was abandoned by pysisists decades ago, maby so much as 150 years ago...
So many economists have concluded that theoretical economy has no basis in reality; that it has no empirical evidence in its favour. The same economists (non-Marxist ones, btw) have actually begun drawing lines between free trade and revolutions; whenever free trade becomes the dominant economic theory, the poor people revolt. If anyone is interested in the historical paralells and stuff, let me know, and I'll see if I can dig out the article I read about this...

Quote:
Theoretically, raising the minimum wage would (almost) always be welcomed for a hermetically closed economy. But, the huge disparity between world economies, makes even the most noble intention of improving the standard of the poorest workers to be often painful and unwanted. The world is a victim of its own past and present ruthless colonial-capitalist economic policies, and now we have to pay the price.

True...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted February 01, 2005 03:38 AM

Quote:
Sorry to correct you Svarog, but he actually said "in response to market inflation", which means that they adjust the nominal value of minimum wages so that in real value, it stays the same as before when inflation raises prizes... (I hope I made myself understood here.

Yes, you're correct. I'm sorry I misunderstood you, rsf. I thought you were talking about raising minimum wages when inflation is taken into account, i.e. above the normal proportional level.
Quote:
So many economists have concluded that theoretical economy has no basis in reality; that it has no empirical evidence in its favour.

What do you mean here? That kind of conclusion is impossible. If not based on reality, what do they base it on? Heroes economy? Maybe what they concluded is that some theories dont agree with reality, but surely not the entire science.
Quote:
The same economists (non-Marxist ones, btw) have actually begun drawing lines between free trade and revolutions; whenever free trade becomes the dominant economic theory, the poor people revolt.

Now if we are talking disregarding reality, this one's it. Why dont the poor people revolt now, when free trade is de facto the domoninat system, more dominant than ever before? Are there any logical explaintation why is that so?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted February 01, 2005 09:51 PM

Quote:
Quote:
So many economists have concluded that theoretical economy has no basis in reality; that it has no empirical evidence in its favour.

What do you mean here? That kind of conclusion is impossible. If not based on reality, what do they base it on? Heroes economy? Maybe what they concluded is that some theories dont agree with reality, but surely not the entire science.

Well, I put that a little wrongly, but let me just see if I can find the article and I'll try to explain what it really was about...
*searching the trash*
Ok, you have the empirical version, or historical, where you gather experiences and abstracts a theory from these: When you so and so, this and that happens - not always, but usually.
Then you have the thory building where you begin with a metaphor - and in economics this metaphor is usually borrowed from phisics - and say that supply and demand is like equilibrium in an equilibrium system in physics, or that the market works like the planets in a solar system, being held in place by "an invisible hand". Quoting from the article: "The ironical part, is that this Newtonian physics was abandoned by physicists, but still exsists in economy. Some people seem to have tripped (as in 'getting high', to use a metaphor , Terje's note) entirely on this use and misuse of metaphors. Then they begin to think that like they can calculate the entire orbits of planets, just by knowing bits and parts of it, they can also calculate human behaviour by knowing just a little about it. At a certain point, these metaphors stop being useful, and it's then that things go wrong."
Hmm. So it seems I exaggregated a bit. Sorry about that.

Quote:
Quote:
The same economists (non-Marxist ones, btw) have actually begun drawing lines between free trade and revolutions; whenever free trade becomes the dominant economic theory, the poor people revolt.

Now if we are talking disregarding reality, this one's it. Why dont the poor people revolt now, when free trade is de facto the domoninat system, more dominant than ever before? Are there any logical explaintation why is that so?

Let's see...
Here's the professor's* backing for his claims:
- The Physiocrats in the 1760s: They released the market for wheat and other grains, and this was an important reason for the French Revolution (Palmer, Colton and Kramer's "A History Of The Modern World", ninth edition, supports this).
- The Manchester liberalism, with David Ricardo's theories from 1817 as a foundation, lead to the revolutions around 1848, according to the professor.

Now, he says, we are in a third periode where economic liberalism has become the dominant canon, and so a revolution is likely to come. He doesn't want this, and so have started a network against free trade, and such stuff.

As for why poor people hasn't revolted before... I guess they might have been a little busy with starvation, repression from various fascist regimes, and that most of the world in the last century have been under "communist" governments (which usually aren't much inclined to allow free trade to flourish in their territories), and these kinds of things...

*The professor who is interviewed in the article about his new book (Global Economy) is Erik S. Reinert, who has degrees in Economy from both Harvard and Cornell.
The article is more centered on what the World Bank and the IMF have been up to, how free trade has ruined almost everything it has touched and how the advocates of this thing still hasn't realised this yet, and lie and cheat with statistics to hide it. This I have refered to here was more like an intro to the article, to draw up the theoretical/historical base for his claims...

Btw: To make sure this thread doesn't get totally off-topic, I should remind you people who are negative to higher minimum wages, that even the arch-capitalist Henry Ford acknowledged that higher wages lead to higher profits: He raised the wages of his worlers, cos he knew that they then would be able to buy his products, and so his wealth would grow...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1189 seconds