Individual perceptions

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: I did, and researched all the names on About Us. Each one is listed as neo or new Keynesian economist (the economics of the Left). Like I said hardly a non-partisan research group.

Please provide a definition of Keynesian Economics as being economics of the Left. The definition I found says nothing about that whatsoever: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Keynesian-economics.html

Come on now Z, are you really suggesting that the vast majority of Liberals in Congress don't bow to the throne of Paul Krugman, one of the biggest Keynesian liberal economists on the planet? There may not be a definition in a business dictionary that includes a political definition because economics is about numbers and how to increase them... it just so happens it fits better with leftist ideology.

That really isn't the issue, now, is it? The issue is a viable definition of both Keynesian economics and Neo-Liberal/Classical economics. You do have a penchant for deflection, don't you?

I'm noot deflecting at all, I was just addressing your point about Keynesian economics not being the basis of most liberal economic ideology today.

DEFINITION of 'Classical Economics'

Classical economics refers to work done by a group of economists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They developed theories about the way markets and market economies work. The study was primarily concerned with the dynamics of economic growth. It stressed economic freedom and promoted ideas such as laissez-faire and free competition.

Sorry, but I don't see any Democrats in Congress or the POTUS promoting classical economics at all.

As for "neo-liberal economics", I think you're going to need explain that to me as you understand it. I think you need to look into "socialist economics", maybe that is a better term for what you believe most liberals want?

Advocates of free-market socialism, such as Jaroslav Vanek, argue that genuine free markets are not possible under conditions of private ownership over productive property because the class differences and inequalities in income and power that ensue from this arrangement enable interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to pass government regulations and policies that benefit their specific business interests.[6] Additionally, Vanek states that workers in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises would have stronger incentives to maximize productivity because they would receive a share of the profits (based on the overall performance of their enterprise) in addition to receiving a fixed wage or salary. Similar outcomes could be accomplished in a capitalistic free market if the employee were to purchase stock of the company they work for.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Guess I should have separated Neo-liberal from the "classical" economics in my post. The slash mark was intended to put the "classical" with neo. Obviously, I should have said Neo-liberal and neo-classical: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ne...sical-economics.html .

A Denver Post article in the business section titled. "Colorado construction firms up the wage ante to compete for workers" lists other types of construction jobs as why they must do this to compete. No where in the article is any reference to increasing wages to attract minimum wage workers. There is a cause/effect relationship and raising minimum wages has nothing to do with increasing other job growth.

HEARTLESS wrote: A Denver Post article in the business section titled. "Colorado construction firms up the wage ante to compete for workers" lists other types of construction jobs as why they must do this to compete. No where in the article is any reference to increasing wages to attract minimum wage workers. There is a cause/effect relationship and raising minimum wages has nothing to do with increasing other job growth.

No one, that I'm aware of, is saying competition is a bad thing.

Denial and deflection is all the Left has, carry on.

HEARTLESS wrote: Denial and deflection is all the Left has, carry on.

Back at you.

IMO, wage competition is a good thing, artificially forcing employers to pay more than a job is worth is not, and would be counterproductive to increasing real employment.

jf1acai wrote: IMO, wage competition is a good thing, artificially forcing employers to pay more than a job is worth is not, and would be counterproductive to increasing real employment.

For the record, I agree. Wage competition IS a good thing, contrary to what some in this thread apparently believe about my position on this. The issue is in determining what a wage at the very bottom, or the very top, for that matter, of the earnings ladder is actually "worth" and whether or not those earnings merit a raise or a reduction. The earnings at the bottom can arguably be "regulated" through a minimum established by law than can those earnings (whether they are actually "earned" or not is another subject entirely) at the top.

ZHawke wrote: Guess I should have separated Neo-liberal from the "classical" economics in my post. The slash mark was intended to put the "classical" with neo. Obviously, I should have said Neo-liberal and neo-classical: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ne...sical-economics.html .

I'm still waiting for you to show me that "liberal economics" is anything other than Keynesian economics.

From your link

It is 'classical' in the sense that it based on the belief that competition leads to an efficient allocation of resources, and regulates economic activity that establishes equilibrium between demand and supply through the operation of market forces. It is 'neo' in the sense that it departs sharply from the classical viewpoint in its analytic approach that places great emphasis on mathematical techniques. In opposition to Keynesian economics, this school states that savings determine investment (not the other way round), and is concerned primarily with market equilibrium and growth at full employment instead of with the under-employment of resources. Not to be confused with new classical economics.

How does this fit into any modern liberal economic thought?

Here is a couple examplles of what Keynesian (and I believe liberal) economic thought is:

•In recessions the aggregate demand of economies falls. In other words, businesses and people tighten their belts and spend less money. Lower spending results in demand falling further and a vicious circle ensues of job losses and further falls in spending. Keynes's solution to the problem was that governments should borrow money and boost demand by pushing the money into the economy. Once the economy recovered, and was expanding again, governments should pay back the loans.]

Except we don't pay back those loans do we?

•Keynes's view that governments should play a major role in economic management marked a break with the laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith, which held that economies function best when markets are left free of state intervention.

The difference in liberal vs conservative economics is the fact that liberals want the government to have more control over the economy while the coonservatives prefer the government to have less influence. I still can't find any liberal economic thought that is anything but Keynesian.
www.maynardkeynes.org/maynard-keynes-economics.html

What you aren't getting ZHawke, is that artificially raising a wage past the point where the business owner is not getting value for that wage, forces the employer to do one of two things. Raise the price of the final product to facilitate the additional costs, or (and more likely) find a way to get rid of that job all together thru robotics, computers, or yes, maybe outsourcing. I don't know your experience in owning a business, but in mine, there is a limited amount we can charge for our product. People don't just willingly pay more "just because".

There is no free lunch here.