Do Economists Understand the Economy?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Mcg-, Apr 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    funny thing, about 7 years ago in junior college after reading Waiting for Godot i wrote an essay on an exam about how the fundamental drive of humans is leisure (i put laziness) and how the play/book was about this fundamental drive.

    I didn't do too well! i was pissed and sure i was right then, now, not so sure.
    but continue down your own thought process/line of thinking. don't just take my word for it...
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    1. no Mcgirth

    suppose you make pillows and dont care if I think your pillows are comfortable enough to sleep on. I'm going to stop buying your pillows from you and cop from the guy who actually does care about what I desire

    smh @ your smelly foam slab pillows

    you better learn how to make pillows i like

    or you wont make no money and the guy who does care about my desires and needs will. human desire always comes first. this is what necessitates the very existence of a product from the very start.

    so you see... you DO make your pillows for my comfort. you necessarily must - as its my very own desire for my comfort that necessitates the existence of pillows at all.

    2. yes and I just assumed you would get what I was saying as generally humans can pick up on each other like that in conversations without having to speak like computers.

    the 'freedom from disease' part is tacked on as you seemed to receive it...

    but I would presume it goes without saying that you cant really enjoy leisure if you are slowly dieing from a skin eating virus or...

    in the process of being eaten by a tiger

    are you saying you can have leisure while being eaten by a tiger? I would not really be that leisurely while being eaten alive.

    and

    if I had a choice to never work again.... OF COURSE I WOULD DO THAT

    do you think people enjoy being road-sweepers, plumbers, accountants, salesmen?

    ummm

    you are grou0ping optional "work" that people actually enjoy doing (like say, a professional poker player or a professional boxer or basketball player) together with work people dont actually enjoy doing (like say, selling womens shoes like Al bundy who goes home every single day of his life to complain about having to sell shoes to fat women every day)

    you are wrong to do this as these two types of "work" are clearly different

    one is recreational in nature (ie leisurely) whilst the other is nothing of the sort


    your swag is not strong today
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    ah well I am not arguing towards laziness. I dont think humans want to be lazy.

    I think they want ultimately adventure and love if I may be allowed to be fancy. just very base, almost animal things like that. but also they hate all the things that impede this...

    like disease, tigers eating them, having to sell women's shoes for the rest of your life...

    do you not see this hidden drive reflected in all that is around you?
    test
  4. SIZZLA

    SIZZLA New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 1999
    Messages:
    7,907

    none of you cats have heard of herman daly?
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    test
  6. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    You dudes are arguing at cross purposes. McG is arguing from the narrow definition of leisure where radium is using it in a broader sense. When Rad talks about maximising leisure he seems to be talking about amount and quality of leisure where McG has interepreted his idea of maximising leisure as reffering only to the amount of leisure.

    By the by, Marx hardly worked a day in his life which seems to be a pretty immediate stumbling block for his contention that 'people have a fundamental need to work'. I think we all know from personal experience that there are indeed some people who feel a need to work but there are others that are content to do fuck all.
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    Mcgirth for so long I've thought you were the strongest thinker here and perhaps also the strongest thinker I've ever encountered in my life

    I've seen you destroy people left and right, you've even beat me up a few times

    and I could so much as only dent you

    and yet everyone here has shown a weakness

    Ghetalion is too savage and insane, Menaz is not capable of higher deductive reasoning, Teq has no imagination, BlackSoultan only talks about black people... the list expands thus

    you have always appeared flawless

    but now I think I have found your weakness.

    I dont think you really understand the person, the human

    your thinking is more centered around the nature and function of society. and yet is not everything in society reducible to the human and his nature? the thin strings that pull gently on his heart while being harshly bound in place by the coarse ropes that strafe its outer skin.

    you lack intimacy to these things
    test
  8. Volaticus

    Volaticus Anarcho-Capitalist

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,408
    You guys have sort of haphazardly reinvented von Mises' theory of the disutility of labor. Please pick up a book by one of the following: Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek.
    test
  9. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    Nah, they haven't and mises isn't responsible for the theory of disutility of labour. I believe it was alfred marshall who first coined the term and the underlying idea had already been established prior to that.
    test
  10. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    radium.
    are you sure that fundamental drive that you see in everything isn't just you transcribing motive to peoples actions, rather than their actual motives?


    The idea that people are self-interested as the basis of society is not based on the idea that everyone's motive is that people are self-interested. Rather its the idea that IF WE ASSUME that people are self-interested, then we can construct our institutions/legal/economic order around this idea in a sound manor that aims towards producing good for the whole. If people happen to do things for other reasons, say for leisure, charity, etc... that's fine also. It won't upset the order and society will still aim towards the good.


    By contrast, a system based on the idea that "everyone is fundamentally good" say, would collapse as soon as you get people that start doing bad things or aren't fundamentally good.

    You idea that that leisure is the motive behind action. And from this we can construct ideas about history, society, institutions, etc...

    See the first problem is, I think this is you just transcribing motive to various actions you see throughout history. You can't prove motive, just like I can't prove motive. You could say, the caveman wanted leisure when he invented agriculture; i could say he wanted to improve his chances of survival. You could say the shift to agriculture meant there was more leisure than hunters and gatherers; I could point to proof that agriculture involved more less leisure initially. You could say the drive of the producer to produce is fundamentally leisure; i could say he just wants profit. The fact is, I can keep pointing out thousands of situations that suggest that the motive is not leisure; and you could attempt to them construct the motive as being leisure. Making a universal theory that attempts to map human nature to a fundamental drive, that is ultimately linked to your assessment of motive (which you can't prove) is shaky at best.


    The second problem is, saying that something is a fundamental to human nature and that this is the core of the economy or society DOES NOT EQUAL actually starting out with a fundamental core then deductively mapping out accurately HOW the core is linked to society. Till you do that, all you have is a premise and a conclusion - but no argument.

    so basically there is a problem with your core premise and you don't have a sound argument.
    test
  11. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    also why would you think people don't want to sell shoes to women. I met this Iraqi guy with a French Citizenship when i was in Warsaw (Poland) who was a woman's shoe salesman in downtown warsaw, got laid like crazy. (French citizen + access to dozens beautiful polish women daily) One of the happiest dudes I've ever seen!

    you would be suprised what some people enjoy. I'm sure some pro boxers are miserable.

    Wasn't jesus a carpenter. Spinoza turned down many many promotions and honors, and lived the life of a simple lens grinder.

    --> see what i mean. we can debate about you transcribing motives all day; and i can counter punch every point you make; and you can counter back. The point is thought, that the basis is shaky, its not sound or certain. Your standard of proof is that you need a knockout in the first round here; not a 10th round to the judges 2-1 decision.


    Also, Its not that i don't think you can't ground your theory in human nature; but i do think you cannot ground your theory is a presumption about human motive being one thing regardless of what people actually do. basically. you need something more solid.
    test
  12. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    humans are social creatures, the 2 questions are related.

    also, tons of people are smarter then me in their respective fields. i just stick to my own interests/stuff I've actually researched, am curious about, or have a theory about that I want to debate/examine further. That way i appear much smarter then i am. soultan for example would run circles around me in black history topics.
    test
  13. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    i thought marx wrote a shit-load. sure, he never made widgets. (that i know of). But how many of us do these days?
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    ok I'm at school right now so I cant raaly get into this right now
    but i just read your argument
    sounding mad weak in the heart
    youre retreating not coming forward anymore
    i know i got a body when they start doing that
    you rarely hop on the back foot like this
    but as soon as I get home I'm going to toast your ass

    you got me feeling like a siberian tiger in the financial aid office
    test
  15. Volaticus

    Volaticus Anarcho-Capitalist

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,408
    It is a praxeological fact that the fundamental motive of all human action is self-interest. Leisure and self-interest do not always coincide, if the fruits of ones' labor will satisfy various wants to a greater degree than knocking off of work. For those whose labor carries with it lower wages relative to the disutility of that labor, leisure proves more valuable than for those whose wages are higher relative to their labor's disutility. The former can satisfy fewer wants per unit of labor than the latter, and since leisure can thus be said to be in shorter supply, it tends to have a higher subjective value.
    test
  16. Volaticus

    Volaticus Anarcho-Capitalist

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,408
    Deliberately Misplaced Blame - www.mises.org

    test
  17. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    ...I am

    very displeased with this (and you)

    McGirth

    Teq accurately described our discourse. did you not read what he said? did it skip over your head? I am arguing not just leisure (which for some strange reason you only think means being lazy) but the quality of leisure. when I say that humans want to maximize leisure this means that they want to improve their quality of life. I can see how this is completely skipping over your head by statements like this

    "You could say, the caveman wanted leisure when he invented agriculture; i could say he wanted to improve his chances of survival."

    you say this as though the two things were exclusive or counter to one another. they are not

    they both improve the quality of life, and thus, they both are done from a desire to increase leisure.

    good quality of life = leisure

    thus

    better quality of life = more leisure


    I cannot make this more clear for you anymore. If you can't understand that this is what I'm arguing then maybe I was too quick to praise the strengths of your intelligence after all


    next


    to the larger point that labor specifically will be attempted to be phased away gradually by humans

    humans dont like labor.

    you are trying to paint this wonderfully colorful picture of people smiling absurdly while filling out database information behind a compassionless grey desk. people hunched over in the dark sewers cleaning away slime from a pressure valve while singing a happy song that echoes through the alligator and human-waste filled tunnels beneath a screaming city. the rows of happy faces robotically blinking and twitching in perfect synchronization in the sweltering heat of the sticky sweat shops of indonesia.

    this is why i question your humanity.

    I dont think you understand people, McGirth. I really dont think you do.


    now


    let me ask you 2 questions that relate to the above information:

    1 do humans want a good quality of life?

    2 is it that humans enjoy doing labor, or is it that humans enjoy doing recreational activity? can all labor be preformed recreationally?



    humans wanting good quality of life (leisure) isnt fundamental? I regard this as a fact repeated endlessly throughout history. the shoe is ironically on the other foot: the proof is on my side - not on yours.

    may god strike me down if im lieing
    test
  18. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    so in re-cap:

    ---> your point that I am simply transcribing motives and that these transcribed motives cannot be shown to be definitively fundamental

    <--- I try to show how leisure (quality of life) is ultimately a fundamental thing to humans

    ---> your point that work is fun

    <--- that you aren't describing work but instead recreation. some work can be recreational, but not all, or even most. thus you aren't accurately or fully describing work.
    test
  19. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    don't care if pleased/displeased. please don't reduce your arguments to personal attacks. its lame and beneath you.

    1-my argument accounts for both leisure as defined quantitatively and qualitatively. Either way, what counts as quality is based on your assessment, which is always refutable and shaky at best.. You think people don't like to labour. This does not make it so. Don't assume people don't want to be janitors, or that being a doctor is somehow better. Not everyone wants to be a pro-boxer or whatever.

    Remember brave new world? The savage would give ANYTHING to return to the "primitive" reserve world away from the high quality-high quantity soma induced brave new world where anything is possible, to a primitive world where you like to 30 and have to work to survive.


    here you may retort that "this is just his version of the best quality of leisure". But then you don't really have an argument if your just spinning whatever people happen to do as being the "best form of leisure". You may also retort that this is not a real example, but there are many examples of natives brought to europe who then wanted to go back to their previous condition.

    Again, because your trying to prove that something is the basis of human nature, the onus is STRONGLY on you to establish your case. There shouldn't even be any shaky points whatsoever if your claiming something basic about human nature. Like i said, you need a first round knockout here, not a 10 round decision. (thus, why im not even bothering with a full rebuttal)

    2- you ignored the point completely that even if you have a premise (humans want to improve the quality of their labour), and a conclusion (the economic system), you still don't have a sound argument of how improving the quality of human labour should somehow be or somehow is the basis of a sound economy along with all its institutions.

    For example, please explain the idea of credit around the idea that people want to improve the quality of labour.
    Please explain why we should restrict the money supply.
    etc....


    3- Of course its extremely difficult if not impossible for you to accomplish the task of providing a sound basis for the economy. Really,. this thread is about asking if current economic theory is accurate more than about trying to construct a new theory. So i give you a pass for trying.
    test
  20. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    *pulls mysterious red lever*

    *McGirth's computer chair instantly jettisons him into outer space*
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)