Economics - right-wing biased?

[Richard Cribb]

Sorry, I couldn't care less, I don't hate you. I'm sorry about that.

I don't hate you either, as a matter of fact I don't go around hating people, with the possible exception of the mother of my first wife.
In real life I might very well like you, actually, I tend to do that with most people.

But again, aboyut the style of the content you linked (I understand it's not academic content. Ok for the clarificationb)

Make no mistake here. This doesn't mean that it is devoid of relevance, it might indeed contain more than many a paper. However my point was that sometimes it needs to present some basic fact, since it is intended both for academics like you and hoi polloi like myself.

But nevertheless if you want to make any point I suggest you try leave all the emotions away ("they are the rich, so they fallaciously create systems for the rich" etc...), it may help convice some but will pretty much lower the quality of the demonstration for others. Note that your contradictors (neo classic eco mainly, don't use this sanguine tools so you better try and avoid to fully armed a battlefield that is empty of any enemy.

This is not very good advice seen in context of the thread.
First of all, I don't see production of ideology as a fallacy. It is completely legitimate for ruling elites and there auxilliaries to create ideologies. What I want however, is for them to be open about it. Personally I never try to hide my position, I don't pretend to be mr.Objective when dealing with political matters (which in my opinion is what this is all about), and then I leave it to anybody to accept or reject my arguments.
I expect no less from my "contradictors" either, neoclassics or not.

Besides the demonstration of the small part I read (eco/science), I agreed with...
I don't think hatred is part of any sane debate. Unlike extremists, the ones opposing people/races/classes etc... I believe the other way around. If you contribute to this hate, I know on what side you are, it's not the left or the right, it's the extremists.

I am sorry again, but I don't buy this.
I think I never agitated for doing anything violent against the ruling class, even less participated in any such action. Actually many people don't consider me a real anarchist at all (which is something I can live well with), since I believe in using legal, non-violent ways in realizing my political goals. I am even a member of a mainstream socialist party.
You are free to call me an extremist if you so like, but that says more about your political position then.

And I'm sureyou'll take that as a compliment

Then you don't know me very well, unfortunately..

 

[happy_Alex]

No, its not. Blanket judgements are not valid.

Surely you'd agree that there are some unions out there that are just plain awful, and other that do a very good job, and most fall somewhere in between

And dont kid yourself on being objective. Not one poster in CFC is objective at all.

I think this is a good example of what Lucifereal is talking about. It's ok to generalise when it supports your opinions then? (ie the ratio of good/bad unions is equivocal) but not when I agree that economics is value loaded in the favour of ruling elites?

 

[Hayek]

I wonder who has written the thread starter's textbook, not that I put any stock into anything he says about it. I guess those who think economics is right-wing biased are not very well versed in the subject. At least the below study indicates that economists are not generally free-market purists.

http://www.sofi.su.se/wp/WP06-6.pdf

The abstract:

People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data is broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is “middle-of-theroad,” not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views.

 

[theimmortal1]

Well first of all most of you need to get on the compass. Simply being right wing or left wing isn't enough information. It depends if you are right/left on the economic spectrum or the social spectrum. They are completly different.

Now this thread has to do with economics...

Basically left wing economics do not work. State planned economies do not work. The freer the economy the better the society in the long term.

 

[JerichoHill]

I think this is a good example of what Lucifereal is talking about. It's ok to generalise when it supports your opinions then? (ie the ratio of good/bad unions is equivocal) but not when I agree that economics is value loaded in the favour of ruling elites?

And here's my point. You use charged words, while I attempt, when explaining economic systems, to stay tone-neutral. Here's a hint : Any economic system or political system or cultural system is in place because it benefits those in charge. Otherwise, they'd change it.

Economics is essentially math. Taken on its theoretical level, there is no bias, as math can't really have biased unless 1=1 is biased? When the theory is then applied to policy, that is where bias occurs. Bias is human. Bias is the human failing in realizing that the perfect conditions for theory and equations don't exist in reality. (Which is also a damning indictment for any central planning system). Now, we can still use theory to yield insights into what we should be doing, and at its most basic generalized form, theory will work in reality. When we get away from that, then things don't work as one was predicted (supply-side economics).

The thing is, last I checked I pretty much don't side one way or the other 100% of the time. My analysis tells me that a pure right wing or left wing (to use your turns) is always wrong, and that everything needs to be looked at on a case by case basis (which again damns any central planning).

That, and I'm an economist. If you want to debate, debate using logic, not emotional words.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I would have to say that economics is neutral.

Like Jericho is saying, it is merely math. Math designed to optimize efficiency and utility.

Whether society decides that it has values and goals outside of pure economics is beside the point. If a society wishes to sacrifice economically for some other ends, economics merely shows what the precise effects will be. It merely provides information that will allow for more informed decisions. It is a decision-making tool. If you are deciding between different social programs to invest in, economics would be an invaluable tool in making the best decision based on your societal values, because it will predict the economic effects. (I have said the same thing in about 5 different ways, so I hope the point gets across)

If certain economists become overly-politicized or in some other way lose the mentality of a scientist, the field of economics itself cannot be faulted.

 

[Sidhe]

Economics is neutral but it never has been neutral in its utility, and it never will. Therefore claiming it is neutral is like claiming that Mohammed was neutral about faith. Economics will only be purely neutral, if you apply it never could it be.

 

[Shylock]

Has a picture of George W. Bush and says how his tax cuts were good for the economy! Somebody shoot me.

Money in the pockets of more people who are going to either spend it or save is bad for the economy?


The Economy is natural force, people want things, they will trade other things for it to the nth degree. Communism is unnatural and attempts to force people to share, which it fails at doing

 

[REDY]

Economics is essentially math. Taken on its theoretical level, there is no bias, as math can't really have biased unless 1=1 is biased?
I think that problem is that behaviour of rational consumer and rational producer should look how economist wanted. Yes statistics and number are maths and should show examples But examples from statistics should be chosen how doctrine wants and theory highly depends on economic doctrine. In our previous regime the rational consumer/producer should realy look different and also same logical as in todays. Sry 4 English.

 

[JerichoHill]

Economics is neutral but it never has been neutral in its utility, and it never will. Therefore claiming it is neutral is like claiming that Mohammed was neutral about faith. Economics will only be purely neutral, if you apply it never could it be.

HUH?
Dude, like, I think you contradicted yourself or something there. I dont understand what youre saying, but if this is seriously your argument against using economics, then you need to suggest and alternative means of analysis

Which I guess wont involve math...

 

[JerichoHill]

Economics is essentially math. Taken on its theoretical level, there is no bias, as math can't really have biased unless 1=1 is biased?
I think that problem is that behaviour of rational consumer and rational producer should look how economist wanted. Yes statistics and number are maths and should show examples But examples from statistics should be chosen how doctrine wants and theory highly depends on economic doctrine. In our previous regime the rational consumer/producer should realy look different and also same logical as in todays. Sry 4 English.

rational choice models occured 200 years after economics first took on a theoretical form. Firstly, theory doesnt depend on math. zMath is used to express a theory and see if its predictions bear out. If theory was false then the math would not bear that out. Our models would not produce results which are useful in the real world. They would produce results that would be wholly incorrect.

I am not understanding this critique of economics.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Economics is essentially math. Taken on its theoretical level, there is no bias, as math can't really have biased unless 1=1 is biased? When the theory is then applied to policy, that is where bias occurs. Bias is human. Bias is the human failing in realizing that the perfect conditions for theory and equations don't exist in reality.

Agree that economics is not biased, but would expand that bias not only occurs when theory is applied to policy, but also when people have different underlying assumptions or values.

For example, social security is certainly inefficient. On an individual level, I will be far better off saving for my own retirement if I could have that money available to me now. However, social security is certainly effective in ensuring those who don't/won't save for retirement will have some money available in their 'golden years.' The argument for / against social security really revolves around whether we should have a safety net and who should be covered by it. Only after the baseline is agreed upon, which it isn't by the Dems and Reps, can economics be used to determine the best way to implement it.

 

[happy_Alex]

And here's my point. You use charged words, while I attempt, when explaining economic systems, to stay tone-neutral. Here's a hint : Any economic system or political system or cultural system is in place because it benefits those in charge. Otherwise, they'd change it.

Economics is essentially math. Taken on its theoretical level, there is no bias, as math can't really have biased unless 1=1 is biased? When the theory is then applied to policy, that is where bias occurs. Bias is human. Bias is the human failing in realizing that the perfect conditions for theory and equations don't exist in reality. (Which is also a damning indictment for any central planning system). Now, we can still use theory to yield insights into what we should be doing, and at its most basic generalized form, theory will work in reality. When we get away from that, then things don't work as one was predicted (supply-side economics).

The thing is, last I checked I pretty much don't side one way or the other 100% of the time. My analysis tells me that a pure right wing or left wing (to use your turns) is always wrong, and that everything needs to be looked at on a case by case basis (which again damns any central planning).

That, and I'm an economist. If you want to debate, debate using logic, not emotional words.

I agree that maths is not biased 1=1 of course. But that's not what we are discussing, the OP question is whether economics has a bias, ie is it value loaded. We are not talking about maths. Bias occurs when one chooses the statistics and maths which validate ones opinions. You know full well that one set of statisitics can be used to prove one thing or another. I'll give an example from my own field of education.

In the UK we have 'league tables' of exam results. The results of all exams taken age 16 in a school are collected and added together and published, with the idea that it gives an idea of how good the teaching is in a school.

example


Or do they? some schools are excellent but actually do badly in the tables because the children they take in at the start are not very bright, or because many of them are immigrants, or because there's high mobility in the school. Conversly, in a school which starts out with high fliers not alot is added to the students because they would do okay anyway.

Just seems bad form to me to point at a bunch of statistics and say "look, they don't lie, so how can I possibly be wrong"

Getting back to the whole unemployemnt causes wages to increase thing, Lucefereal was saying that labour is not a commodity, what I think he means here that there are so many other variables involved in labour that it cannot simply be reduced to a mathematical construct, which seems very reasonable to me. Throw me a bone here if I am wrong.

Which is the point made in his essay, where economics (or at least the version he is describing) based on mathematics has no bearing to reality.

 

[JerichoHill]

Economics is math. Not biased. Bias comes in when we place certain assumptions on the models. This is potential bias. If the assumptions inherent in the model fit reality, there's no bias worth complaining about. When the assumptions do not fit reality, then the model is worthless anyways. This is why Marxist economics in its pure form didn't work, it carried an assumption that workers would have incentive to work without a monetary gain.

I have never said that statistics don't lie.

I also don't know where I said unemployment causes wages to rise.

There are many variables involved in dating, yet I was able to reduce it to a mathematical construct and my model for signaling behavior WORKED. Labour, while having alot of things in it, can be analyzed with math. If you don't believe it, then fine, but I would say that's a function of you not having education in how higher-order mathematics works. Since our human capital model works to explain (generally) how humans generally signal, since our agent models (generally) are right about how we interact, then it would stand to reason that (generally) we can describe something using math.

And I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how you can say that economics has no bearing on reality. Do you really think we're that complicated? We're not!

 

[dutchfire]

@Jericho Hill

Economy is certainly maths. The problem in real life is that 100 dollars is not always twice as good as 50 dollars. There are situations where you'll need to have 100 dollars, and any less won't do you any good. (A criminal pointing his gun at you, saying "$100 or your life" And there are situations where $50 will give you approximately the same amount of life-quality as $100. When you're in a hamburger restaurant, $100 won't help you that much, as there's a max at what you can eat anyway.

 

[Commie #4522]

I wonder who has written the thread starter's textbook, not that I put any stock into anything he says about it. I guess those who think economics is right-wing biased are not very well versed in the subject. At least the below study indicates that economists are not generally free-market purists.

http://www.sofi.su.se/wp/WP06-6.pdf

The abstract:

But just like always the right wings use their influence to drown out all other viewpoints.

That's not going to happen to me when I study economics. Even UC Berkeley I have heard has a very liberal/socialist slant to their economics program.

 

[JerichoHill]

@Jericho Hill

Economy is certainly maths. The problem in real life is that 100 dollars is not always twice as good as 50 dollars. There are situations where you'll need to have 100 dollars, and any less won't do you any good. (A criminal pointing his gun at you, saying "$100 or your life" And there are situations where $50 will give you approximately the same amount of life-quality as $100. When you're in a hamburger restaurant, $100 won't help you that much, as there's a max at what you can eat anyway.

How is this a critique? I don't even understand your point here? Is is that you don't get how we model utility? Non-linearity?

What? I don't understand and my brain is hurting because it seems that you all are young and don't have a clue what economics actually is!

 

[JerichoHill]

But just like always the right wings use their influence to drown out all other viewpoints.

That's not going to happen to me when I study economics. Even UC Berkeley I have heard has a very liberal/socialist slant to their economics program.

They do. But you will have to learn the base of economics first, and that's all you get in an undergraduate program. To understand their liberal slant, that involves graduate work. A bachelor's degree in economics mainly means you can draw a supply and demand chart and do some algebra. Plus, you're going to have to be elite to make it into Berkeley in the first place.

Honestly, you'd be better off going to a regular Cali school for your undergrad, since the content is the same (Almost all bachelor's degree's have the same base content). Graduate school is for learning your craft. Not undergraduate.

And how is the right-wing using their influence to drown out others? In economics, the explosion in research is in agent-modeling (experimental economics), or in sociological economics. The most prominent economics schools are ALL LIBERAL, save Chicago and Mason, and they're NOT RIGHT WING either.

(Sigh)

 

[innonimatu]

If a society wishes to sacrifice economically for some other ends, economics merely shows what the precise effects will be. It merely provides information that will allow for more informed decisions. It is a decision-making tool. If you are deciding between different social programs to invest in, economics would be an invaluable tool in making the best decision based on your societal values, because it will predict the economic effects. (I have said the same thing in about 5 different ways, so I hope the point gets across)

But... what if the economical (mathematical) model used by policy-makers was flawed? Its math would work, but its conclusions would be wrong. Take the notion that higher wages due to unions lead to increased unemployment. Mathematical models producing these results depend on a number of assumptions. If these are wrong, then the model, while mathematically sound, will lead to bad policies.

Economics is not a precise science. It’s a social science, and liable to commit mistakes.

 

[innonimatu]

They do. But you will have to learn the base of economics first, and that's all you get in an undergraduate program. To understand their liberal slant, that involves graduate work.

Yet the vast majority of people who learn about economics learn it only in undergraduate courses. They never get to the level where they understand the possible slant of introductory texts. And the same applies to politicians and to many other policy-makers, who usually are not professional economists.

Therefore any slant in undergraduate programs effectively fools most people, and determines public policies. Are the basis biased?

Economics is math. Not biased. Bias comes in when we place certain assumptions on the models. This is potential bias. If the assumptions inherent in the model fit reality, there's no bias worth complaining about. When the assumptions do not fit reality, then the model is worthless anyways. This is why Marxist economics in its pure form didn't work, it carried an assumption that workers would have incentive to work without a monetary gain.

But neo-classical economics (the one on those introductory textbooks) has its own interesting bias: labour is treated as a commodity, which can be analysed with supply and demand curves. Supply depends on a trade-off between leisure and work, and demand depends on the marginal revenue firms get from additional workers.
This model assumes labour supply increases, and labour demand decreases, as wages rise. There are a number of assumptions on this model. To start with, labour supply might very well decrease as wages rise. The Economist had an article about this phenomenon a few months ago: how some very well-paid people were moving to lower-paid and less stressful jobs – because they could afford it!
In fact, for labour supply to behave according to neo-classical economics (rise with rising wages/income), then the Engels curve for leisure corresponds to that of an inferior commodity. But leisure is a luxury, so we have here a blatant contradiction. And if both labour demand and supply decrease with rising wages, then the model becomes worthless.
Milton Friedman based his whole analysis of labour (and the now popular idea of an equilibrium rate of unemployment) on this model behaving as neo-classical economics postulated. The argument that trade unions are bad is also based on this model.

Labour, while having alot of things in it, can be analyzed with math. If you don't believe it, then fine, but I would say that's a function of you not having education in how higher-order mathematics works.

I intended to ask about this on your thread “Ask an Economist”, but since it’s coming up here, so be it. Can you outline what is the model you favour as a description of the labour market?
About high-order maths, I believe a good number of people around the forum should have a good enough education. As far as I am concerned you can post the equations and I will deal with understanding the maths involved.