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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
P.S.
I have already mentioned some. Go read the thread.
*note - not possessions
Next.
I am honestly telling you that it is not a fundamental assumption of economic modelling
I take it you mean ownership of the means of production by private individuals. No basic economic analysis relies on this to be the case, we talk about firms but these could be run in any kind of way, they could be co-operatives etc.....
I am talking about anyone model, as I have mentioned economics is more of a way of thinking about the world, a method rather than an answer. Specifically I have been thinming about the consumer theory that underpins most other economics. This simply sets out a description of human behaviour, which is a starting point for examining why people behave certain ways in different situations.
What exactly do you mean by a utility theory of value?
Correct.
Errr...you will however, assume the existence of private property in that model.
Yes, but we can't have a conversation about it without knowing what model we are discussing. You know where I'm coming from. Where are you coming from?
Examples? However, I would strongly suspect that they make basic assumptions about people's behaviour within a capitalist context and don't question those underlying assumptions.
*slaps head*
Are you sure you know anything about economics? Utility value theories explain exchange value in terms of the consumer not the producer (in a nutshell). You never heard of marginal utility?
No we will not assume the existence of private property at the most basic level, it is unnecessary.
There are bloody thousands of economic models aimed at answering thousands of economic questions, I am talking about the vary basics, i.e. the most basic consumer and utility theory.
We would make basic assumptions about behaviour yes, we assume agents are utility maximisers.
I answered your questions perfectly civilly, yet you have to lower the tone again......
Yes I understand marginal utility thanks.......
You're barking up the wrong tree then as it's impossible to look at human behaviour in the abstract. It is always based in a social context, which includes modes of production and all the social relations that come with that.
So you know what I'm talking about then don't you?
'It is impossible'
Best tell that to all the people who have been doing it all these years then.
Best explain why this analysis provides many empirically justified conclusions and explains many observed phenomenon.....
And I knew what you meant by private property, you asked me I answered, I do the same, just to confimr and you are rude.
Make you feel big and clever does it?
Yep. Human beings are social animals. How can you divorce what we do from the social? How can you have a theory of utility that ignores the realities of consumption and production? It makes no sense.
Look - the point is that it suits these people to do this because you don't then come to any uncomfortable conclusions about capitalism.
I doubt that it does. Examples please.
Errr...you were being obtuse again. Deliberately I expect. Looking for a slanging match again are you?
Doesn't it?
The basic theory developed by classical economics would actually support many of your own ideas I suspect.
For example it would say that market power was bad, so that action should be taken to prevent corporations becoming too powerful.
It would say pollution was bad, that government should intervene to tax pollutors so as to improve the welfare of society.
Wouldn't you agree with those principles?
I am afraid you probably wouldn't understand any papers I reference sadly.......
The examples are incredibly numerous however.
Just consider very basic stuff, improved technology = lower costs = lower prices, tastes chnage so that demand is higher, prices go up.
Interest rates go up, investment falls etc etc etc.......
Well that is a different debate, as I said several pages back it is obvious that this is the central point of your argument and that is why I started a seperate thread........
Well this is obviously wrong, without going back to the rather tedious and stupid debate about whether living standards have increased I would point out as I have several times in the past that most peoples living standrads increase year on year normally, not just a minority........
No, its exactly the same debate. What exactly do you think we've just been arguing about for the last umpteen pages?
Oh Christ. :rolleyes: Not this again. :rolleyes: x 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Just as you admit there are benefits, you will find that economists admit the costs and as with the environment and large corporations, as I highlighted above, they would advocate that something be done to stop these things from happening.
That is why I think it unfair to label economics as something that is entirely supportive of the consensus.
I certainly agree that some people benefit far more than others and that some people don't do well out of it at all, which is why we must have the kind of strong social democracy of the kind that is found to a greater or lesser extent acroos Europe. In order to ensure the provision of education, health, basic incomes etc.
In my opinion a mixed economy is the best system yet seen in the history of human civilisation.
Your point was that market capitalism would not benefit everyone, as you stated.
I agree, hence why governments are important in a mixed economic system.
Obviously you would say that this was not enough, but I think I am going to start a thread to debate which economic sytems people would prefer so maybe we debate it there?
"Yes, but my point is that nothing you do will reform capitalism, make it any friendlier, nicer, fluffier etc as its underlying mechanisms are exploitation and commodification of human beings for the benefit of a minority."
and I then went on to qualify what I meant by "benefit of a minority". IMO, the costs of capitalism are getting too great - exploitation of people, commodification, alienation, increased mental illness, environmental destuction etc etc. The underlying mechanism of capitalism is exploitation, appropriating surplus value from workers and commodifying human beings.
How is that a result of capitalism, and has it really increased?
Getting too great? But it would be appropriate to say the world was 'more capitalist' a 120 years ago, before the welfare state etc........