Economics - right-wing biased?

[JerichoHill]

@@Commie

I have just returned from the AP Economics midterm; during the test I got into a brief argument with the teacher. The question was as follows:

88) What is the stabilization function of governments?

a) Increasing interest rates to combat inflation.
b) Increasing taxes to combat inflation.
c) Decreasing interest rates to combat inflation.
d) Decreasing taxes to combat inflation.
e) Increasing government spending to combat inflation.

I argued with my teacher that while answer A is correct, that answer E was also correct and could be used.
--Answer E creates inflation. That's why its wrong. More Money Chasing the same amount of goods = inflation.

a) Devoting only one paragraph to command economies, that essentially said "They don't work." without giving any reason nor any arguments against this.
--History. You're telling me its possible to encapsulate all the information on all the goods in a country into 1 person's brain? Wage and Price controls don't work, command economies don't work. Period. Because of information.

b) Argues against tariffs, protections.
--Again, this is supported in the literature, going back hundreds of years. The infant industry argument died a long time ago. Like taxes, tariffs distort the market.

c) Argues against minimum wage, saying it contributes to unemployment, when that's a bunch of crap. Every time minimum wage was raised employment has stayed the same.
--Because the minimum wage is still below the market clearing wage. Politicians lie and say it helps the poor when it in fact does nothing. Nothing! You're in AP economics. What does a price floor do when its below the intersection of supply and demand? NOTHING!


d) Argues against unions, saying society will be better off without them. Rich! I didn't know union members died for this crap to be written in a textbook!
--Unions raise wages above the market clearing price, thereby creating unemployment while raising the value of those still employed. Draw a supply and demand chart and draw a price ceiling above the interesection. Unemployment! MATH IS NOT BIASED!!!!

e) Argues against social security and other welfare programs, calling them wasteful and inefficient.
--How?

f) Gives methods and "tips" on how business should use price discrimination to charge more than they should.
--Than they Should? They demonstrate how firms do it? Theme Parks are a classic example. As long as the consumer is getting at least as much benefit as cost, where's the problem?


g) Doesn't condemn several inefficient and illegal practices, such as collusion and price-setting.
--What textbook doesn't go into why collusion and cartels are bad for the consumer? I've never seen one in 25+ years of schooling that didn't!

h) Constantly makes biased graphs and charts, like putting the growth rate of USA's GDP compared to Europe, with stupid captions like "Europe's welfare systems have compromized economic growth", while tactfully leaving out the facts about China's amazing GDP growth and the fact that Europe has way more benefits than Americans.
--Handled this already. Also, When you are at the top, you grow slower, as you are already performing efficiently. When you are not performing efficiently, and then you put into place policies that enact efficiency, you catch up much fast. Look at a curve of a cresent move. It moves up fast, then its rate of ascent slows as you reach the apex. That's how countries act!


Has a picture of George W. Bush and says how his tax cuts were good for the economy! Somebody shoot me.
--Oh please. Where is this?


i) Praises capitalism shamelessly.
--Flame-baiting and trolling

j) Saying racial and age diversity is a bad thing! Can you say rasism?
--Where does it say this? SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE!

 

[CCA]

PWNED by an Economist.
However, there is more than Just 1 school of Economics and it would be interesting to see a Marxist Economist jump in this discussion
( not a lot of those left since the collapse of the Soviet Union

 

[REDY]

a) Devoting only one paragraph to command economies, that essentially said "They don't work." without giving any reason nor any arguments against this.
Well, in my texbook is shown every defended step in comparision with step which used command economy.

b) Argues against tariffs, protections.
The goverment of USA is right-wing and still have tariffs and protections.

c) Argues against minimum wage, saying it contributes to unemployment, when that's a bunch of crap. Every time minimum wage was raised employment has stayed the same.
I dont want use another "right-wing argument" but look at USA and at Europe unemployment

d) Argues against unions, saying society will be better off without them. Rich! I didn't know union members died for this crap to be written in a textbook!
Hmm if is used that society will be better without them its not fair. But if only there werent said benefits, its OK.

e) Argues against social security and other welfare programs, calling them wasteful and inefficient.
Its true, never played silence-post? I dont know how its called in English.

f) Gives methods and "tips" on how business should use price discrimination to charge more than they should.
Economy is about how to earn money.

g) Doesn't condemn several inefficient and illegal practices, such as collusion and price-setting.
There are many arguments which show that its not useful for participants in long-term.

h) Constantly makes biased graphs and charts, like putting the growth rate of USA's GDP compared to Europe, with stupid captions like "Europe's welfare systems have compromized economic growth", while tactfully leaving out the facts about China's amazing GDP growth and the fact that Europe has way more benefits than Americans.
And what? Europes economy is closer than China. In for example Albania you should build one factory and get 50 percents growth. (Only example)

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

i) Praises capitalism shamelessly.
I think thats commies stereotype.

j) Saying racial and age diversity is a bad thing! Can you say rasism?
I never heard.

 

[happy_Alex]

@@Commie


d) Argues against unions, saying society will be better off without them. Rich! I didn't know union members died for this crap to be written in a textbook!
--Unions raise wages above the market clearing price, thereby creating unemployment while raising the value of those still employed. Draw a supply and demand chart and draw a price ceiling above the interesection. Unemployment! MATH IS NOT BIASED!!!!

This seems to be only part of the pictures. People want security, health benefits and protection from unemployment. Unions can benfit the employers to by providing checks and balances in regards to health and safety and ineffecient working practices, if they are incorporated properly into a company structure.

The creation and maintenance of wealfare states is created by collective action by working people. All of the most successful economies in the world are mixed economies, and as you say, there are NO exceptions.


Tell me that there's no clause in your contract that allows you to be fired tommorow on the whim of your employer. The fact that there is not is not down to goodwill on their behalf, I suspect.

 

[History_Buff]

Indeed, Commie, most of the things you are complaining about are true. I'm not saying they are the right choices for society, but they are correct.

 

[JerichoHill]

This seems to be only part of the pictures. People want security, health benefits and protection from unemployment. Unions can benfit the employers to by providing checks and balances in regards to health and safety and ineffecient working practices, if they are incorporated properly into a company structure.

The creation and maintenance of wealfare states is created by collective action by working people. All of the most successful economies in the world are mixed economies, and as you say, there are NO exceptions.


Tell me that there's no clause in your contract that allows you to be fired tommorow on the whim of your employer. The fact that there is not is not down to goodwill on their behalf, I suspect.

Unions benefit those in the union and harm those not in them. You can make a qualitative judgement and say that the benefit is more than the harm. That's fine, and I won't debate that.

And uhh, Alex, I work for the US government in a interesting capacity. My arrangement here is like a tenured professor. The only way I can get fired is breaking the law (and in a bad way).

SO umm, moral here is to not make assumptions that you may later have to retract

 

[JerichoHill]

Indeed, Commie, most of the things you are complaining about are true. I'm not saying they are the right choices for society, but they are correct.

Are you saying COmmie is closer to what would be right?

 

[Xanikk999]

Commie, economics is about as right wing as you are.

 

[Phlegmak]

Economics is right-wing and communism is wrong-wing. I think that's what Commie #4522 means.

 

[happy_Alex]

Unions benefit those in the union and harm those not in them. You can make a qualitative judgement and say that the benefit is more than the harm. That's fine, and I won't debate that.

And uhh, Alex, I work for the US government in a interesting capacity. My arrangement here is like a tenured professor. The only way I can get fired is breaking the law (and in a bad way).

SO umm, moral here is to not make assumptions that you may later have to retract

Ok so there is not a union that represents your field of work? I know what your saying, RE tenure, but there are always circumstances where employers WILL fire employees if it means protecting their institution or reputation. for example, where malicious or false allegations have been made.

 

[CCA]

Actually there are differences between Economics textbooks in Countires.
For instance in New Zealand Economics Textbooks
Command/Free Market/Primitive and Mixed Economies are described with their comparative advantages and disadvantages. So I do think that the US is somewhat biased towards Free Markes

 

[Godwynn]

e) Increasing government spending to combat inflation.

I argued with my teacher that while answer A is correct, that answer E was also correct and could be used. It is possible and has been done in the past (Think 1930s) where government spending has been increased to help people survive when capitalism failed. In a sense government spending can be increased to combat the side effects of inflation.

In the 1930's there was an annual deflation rate of around 2%.

You do realize that deflation is bad as well. Since you seem to care so much about the lower classes, they are the ones hurt the most in deflation. They are more than likely in debt, so their wages will decrease, while their payments will remain constant.

 

[JerichoHill]

Ok so there is not a union that represents your field of work? I know what your saying, RE tenure, but there are always circumstances where employers WILL fire employees if it means protecting their institution or reputation. for example, where malicious or false allegations have been made.

There's a government workers union. I don't belong to it. No reason to belong. It doesn't benefit me at all.

And you know, employers have every right to fire someone for if that person is damaging their business or reputation. I don't see how that is challengable

 

[JerichoHill]

In the 1930's there was an annual deflation rate of around 2%.

You do realize that deflation is bad as well. Since you seem to care so much about the lower classes, they are the ones hurt the most in deflation. They are more than likely in debt, so their wages will decrease, while their payments will remain constant.

Yeah, deflation wrecks an economy faster than inflation.

 

[rysingsun]

I argued with my teacher that while answer A is correct, that answer E was also correct and could be used. It is possible and has been done in the past (Think 1930s)

No, you are incorrect. government spending in the 30s was not to combat inflation but rather to combat deflation. The correct answer was indeed A.

 

[Godwynn]

Yeah, deflation wrecks an economy faster than inflation.

I'm trying to be like Jericho.

 

[GinandTonic]

There's a government workers union. I don't belong to it. No reason to belong. It doesn't benefit me at all.

And you know, employers have every right to fire someone for if that person is damaging their business or reputation. I don't see how that is challengable

Although not you?

 

[JerichoHill]

I doubt that I am damaging their reputation, if that is the insinuation.

 

[happy_Alex]

There's a government workers union. I don't belong to it. No reason to belong. It doesn't benefit me at all.

And you know, employers have every right to fire someone for if that person is damaging their business or reputation. I don't see how that is challengable

Don't get me wrong JH, you're hardly doing any damage to the reputation of the US governent at all. In fact, some mught say that you are actually enhancing it slighty

Seriously, let me try to illustrate my whole big thing point with a hypothetical but believable scenario.

Lets say that some one in your organisation loses their temper and roughs up another member of staff. They throw in a racist remark to. The victim, new to the organisation, during the company (or department) investigation, is asked to identify the assailant from a page of mugshots and they positively ID you.

The organisation, prefering to deal with the problem quickly, and wanting to avoid a drawn out investigation which might incriminate their procedures or management, act in their best interest an fire you, bearing in mind that in emloyment circumstances, the onus is not on 'innocent until proven guilty' but rather on balance of probability.

"employers have every right to fire someone for if that person is damaging their business or reputation"

even if 'you' are not at fault as in the scenario above?


This is not a far fetched scenario. As part of a union you would have access to expertise and legal council. In extremis, your colleagues might vote for strike action in support of your unfair dismissal.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I have just returned from the AP Economics midterm; during the test I got into a brief argument with the teacher. The question was as follows:

88) What is the stabilization function of governments?

a) Increasing interest rates to combat inflation.
b) Increasing taxes to combat inflation.
c) Decreasing interest rates to combat inflation.
d) Decreasing taxes to combat inflation.
e) Increasing government spending to combat inflation.

I argued with my teacher that while answer A is correct, that answer E was also correct and could be used. It is possible and has been done in the past (Think 1930s) where government spending has been increased to help people survive when capitalism failed. In a sense government spending can be increased to combat the side effects of inflation.

My teacher merely said "Well, you know the answer is A. You can put what you want if you want to rebel, but you will get it wrong."

The book is right. Increasing government spending tends to increase inflation. The 1930s was a time of chronic deflation. The teacher is right that your point would have been wrong.

The stabilization function of government doesn't mean the ONLY function of government. You are trying to read a philosophical argument into a technical point the book was trying to get across. Combatting inflation is not the same thing as combatting hunger. I see no attempt at bias in the question at all.

This is the wrong question to point out a bias in the book. Make sure you aren't blinding yourself with your own. There is value in knowing economics, even if you have a worldview that holds communism on a pedestal.