If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
No they don't.
Income, for it to be meaningful, can only be linked to the cost of things to buy.
It's all well and good earning £100 a day instead of £100 a week, but not if a house costs £125,000 instead of £15,000, and a family saloon car costs £12,000.
Real average incomes grow year on year, normally......
The average British person today is better off than the average person 100 years ago.
I am better off now than my grandad was when he was my age.
Do you dispute that?
a) Some of the criticisms of the classical economics are interesting but the author is clearly focusing on those elements he can criticsie, there are plenty of aspects which he neglects to mention, and which deal with several of the points he makes
i.e. on the subject of circular causation and dynamism he fails to mention the theory of the Walrasian auctioneer, he also mentions information assymetries as something nto dealt with by the core theory. This is not really true as this is a much exploredissue, the theories dealling with shich are well known to most economists.....
b) he criticises lack of data etc, lack of empirical testing but doesn't seem willing to subject his own theory to empricial analysis....
c) the point about the model of perfect competion not being an accurtae representation of the real world is of course true. But suggesting that this is not somehow aknowledged by economists is completely untrue......
You didn't actually read my post did you?
They don't.
No they don't.
And am I better off than people 100 years ago? Not really. I still spend nearly all my wage on rent and food.
Technology might have improved, but in real terms there isn't as much difference as those who delight in "progress" would like to say.
You've also asssumed that the exchange value stays the same, when in fact, producing more units would eventually bring the exchange value down due to the law of supply and demand.
You have TV, the Internet, cars, better sanitation, better healthcare, better education.
If you really don't think that your life now is probably better than it would have been a hundred years ago then you are deluded....
The fact you use this site so much suggests you get some enjoyment from it, 100 years ago you would not have had this, you are better off, aren't you.
Real wages do increase, on average, normally, every year
Please show me some data to the contrary Blagsta.......
Yes there are issues with inequality, yes a median measure might be more appropriate than a mean.
No this is not enough to outweigh the gains for most people. And anyway we didn't start more equal than we are today necessarily so the genral trend will hold anyway.
Figures please..........
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article307942.ece
"Since the mid-1990s disposable income grew by over a fifth for both groups. However, these increases resulted in a rise of £119 per week for the best off compared with a rise of £28 per week for the poorest."
If you can't even concede a simple point such as this then this highlights exactly what I have been saying about your role in these 'debates'........
Back to the previous links.......
I think the main point uderlying the various technicalities of the argument about value, profit etc is the idea that selling your labour is exploitiation
I am going to start a new thread on the matter for that reason.......
Correct - having to sell your labour as a commodity, is exploitation and leads to the commodification of human beings.
You'll have to help me out here and explain a bit about the "Walrasian auctioneer". This http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/EconomicaeW.htm
doesn't shed much light on what you mean either
The point wasn't really that the Walrasian auctioneer is the correct way of describing the economy because it isn't. I just used that as an example to highlight the fact that the analysis you linked to has neglected large swathes of economic theory (i.e. most of it) that consider the problems he talks about........
These theoretical concepts act as a jumping off point for a more in depth analysis.
Formulating a model, then recognising its flaws and adapting to them is the way we improve our understanding....
THe point with the Walrasian auctioneer is of course not that there is actually such an individual but that markets way work as if there were one, and that this concept helps us to understand and formalise that understanding......
Yes...and? What are is your critique of the ltv and surplus value?
"markets way work as if there were one" (I assume you mean "may") - eh? You've just said that its incorrect. Is it or isn't it?
With Perfect Compertition for example, think of them as an engine with 100% efficiency, completly impossible in the real world, but very usefull as a theory to know what "to aim for" or as a benchmark for other engins.
Do you deny that an enginer analysing an engine to see how efficient it was would need to know what was 100% first?
Hey your the one always quoting Marx
The economy is not an engine.
Yep, because an analysis of how capitalism actually works rather than how you'd like it to work is a better idea IMO.
That is what you need to do in modern economics.
Its all well and good you claiming that Marx is right, if so you should be able to prove it with numbers........
Modern economics has a vast amount of empirical investigation, truly vast.....
It isn't based on any such assumptions..........
I am telling you it does none of those things......
The existing social structure, such as people growing/hunting/making things and people selling/buying things.
From the earliest cavemen to the roman empire to today such conditions have exsisted, evern in the Soviet Union they traded with other countries and had a black market,
Name me one system or point in History whare these "existing social structures" didnt exsist,
The only close answer is the good old Soviet Union, which acording to you is/was state capatalism, got any others ?
And how do YOU know that?