Main Page Contact Register Log In


A good start would be to start listening to economists. My macroeconomics textbook has this list of propositions on which most economists agree.

I don't know whether this fits the bill, since some policies can be identified as broadly right-wing or left-wing, but at the very least there is non-ideological justification for them.






Personally, I agree with almost all propositions on this list, but none of its policy recommendations is non-partisan. Just because they are based on what (to you and me) seems perfectly logical arguments, does not make them non-ideological.
69%
melian
stars0
Replies (0)


Some major economics universities are funded big time by private money. Such same expert are also consulted when goverment market control is exercised. There is a doubt in my mind whether there is an attempt to buy opinions out for example giving funding to ideologically favourable teachers and researcers. Tobacco and climate science hasn't been super duper reliable when it comes to impartiality.

It's also one thign to hear an argument from an economist than to take their word for it. To my understanding economist sometimes use models that make several simplying assumtions. When they say the things they say it canbe unclear how much it is directed towards there easy-to-proof-tuff-about systems and which are to be meant to apply to the real messy life. For a lot of the assumtions there are not good ways to test whether they hold and the theorems proved within such a system could be vulnerable for the assumptions not holding.

Then there is also the issue that a lot of reasearch can be focused on how indivudal person or firm can make the most money. Those strategies might not be the ones that make the most vibrant economic ecosystems (that is consistently winning negative sum games might be a winning strategy but everybody copying it means average loss for the world). When one internalises a complicated system it's not clear whether a person can make a difference between adapting to the rules that are set and lobbying for rules that would let you win.
60%
Fwiffo
stars0
Replies (0)


Statements of factual nautre can't be used as decisions as is.

For example statement 17: "A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and inexperinced workers" might be tempting to read as argument as why to ban minimum wage but i can also be used to justify minimum wage.

Usually the point of a minimum wage is that a full time job should be able to provide it's doer a decent income. That is that working for a living should make sense. If you use the market to provide your jobs it would be nice if it had the property that one can live off the earnings. However if the market is willing to provide under subsistense jobs given the chance then not all the jobs fit the bill. For example walmart got bad PR for employing people that also get public money on the basis of poverty despite working. Having a big corporation that does make a profit rely partly on employees that can't stay financially afloat themself makes the corporation stay partially afloat on welfare money.

It can make sense to rather have those people unemployed. It's much easier to find a work that does offer a living when you are not wage-slaved to one that doesn't. It is hard to educate yourself if you are doing a full-time job and addressing whatever causes such low productivity should probably be higher on the list to do rather than using that low capability. Thus banning absurdly low wages as waste of human potential can make sense. A market believer will say that a rational market will provide abundance. But that can be shown false with 17. Given the chance to offer under-subsistense jobs the market will provide them.
54%
Fwiffo
stars0
Replies (3)