Australian Economics

[Giardiasis]

So your economics is divorced from ethics then, yes?

Economics is a part of the science of human action. It looks at means to achieve ends, it does not tell us what ends to seek, only what means are best employed to achieve certaiin ends. So when you say it is divorced from ethics, you are arguing against utilitarianism. Using government coercion to prevent the types of exchanges we discussed above will not help the low paid workers achieve greater utility.

 

[AngryAnt]

Bargaining power is not relevant to whether or not participants are willing participants. If they are not willing then they wouldn't accept.

Thereby neatly sidestepping the power dynamic between an employer and employee. The ultimate power an employee has is to leave, which is effectively the same as the ultimate sanction the employer has over the employee.

Ie. if you don't like these terms of employment, *smile* off.

 

[Giardiasis]

Thereby neatly sidestepping the power dynamic between an employer and employee. The ultimate power an employee has is to leave, which is effectively the same as the ultimate sanction the employer has over the employee.

Ie. if you don't like these terms of employment, *smile* off.

It's not sidestepping anything. As much as interventionists want to think they can ignore economic law, they can not.

 

[AngryAnt]

It's not sidestepping anything. As much as interventionists want to think they can ignore economic law, they can not.

And there's that sidestep again.

 

[Giardiasis]

And there's that sidestep again.

And there's that non sequitur again.

 

[AngryAnt]

And there's that non sequitur again.

When you address this then I'll stop non sequitering.

The ultimate power an employee has is to leave, which is effectively the same as the ultimate sanction the employer has over the employee.

Ie. if you don't like these terms of employment, *smile* off.

 

[Giardiasis]

What point exactly am I supposed to be addressing? You highlight that low productive workers have low bargaining power. I agree. This does not change the fact that government intervention cannot help the majority of these people by setting a price floor for their wages. Most of them will lose their job, jobs won't be created for them in the future, and industry will produce less hurting everyone else in the economy. Only a small minority of people will benefit by wages above their productivity.

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

Anyone read "Hard Times' by Charles Dickens? I reckon there is one poster here that should change his name and Avatar to Josiah Bounderby.

 

[Giardiasis]

https://mises.org/library/myth-ceo-pay-and-greed

 

[Brodders17]

G, do you think workers should have the right to strike or any other industrial action they choose?

 

[Giardiasis]

Sure, as long as they aren't allowed to force other people to strike, or prevent others from working in an area in which the union has called the strike.

 

[AngryAnt]

Sure, as long as they aren't allowed to force other people to strike, or prevent others from working in an area in which the union has called the strike.

Good answer G-Man!

 

[Giardiasis]

Great, so everyone is in agreement that minimum wage laws should be abolished :clap

 

[AngryAnt]

Great, so everyone is in agreement that minimum wage laws should be abolished :clap

Yep minimum wage should be abolished and everyone should be paid $150k per year regardless of position or skill

 

[Brodders17]

Great, so everyone is in agreement that minimum wage laws should be abolished :clap

no.
should the government pay unemployment benefits?

 

[Giardiasis]

no.
should the government pay unemployment benefits?

Why no?

The question you are really asking is should the government physically coerce wealth from one group of people to then give the wealth to another group of people. The answer is obvious.

 

[Brodders17]

Great, so everyone is in agreement that minimum wage laws should be abolished :clap

no.

Why no?

cos not everyone agrees.

should the government pay unemployment benefits?

The question you are really asking is should the government physically coerce wealth from one group of people to then give the wealth to another group of people. The answer is obvious.

no it is not the question i am asking. governments receive income from a range of streams. personal income tax, business taxes, some profit from enterprise (tho this is less now than previously). from investments, from interest. there is more.

this income is put into a pool and then distributed.

i believe the government, as representatives of the people, have a moral obligation to help those in need, whether they be people who are unemployed, have a disability and cant support themselves, are frail aged (tho super will lessen this need), who have illness. etc.

there are countries that operate similar to way you advocate, at least as far as welfare goes. it leads to people begging on the street, (which you seem to be advocating for). it leads to people dying from the cold. it leads to people with physical disabilities crawling the streets begging for food. it leads to parents abandoning children with disabilities because they have no way of supporting them.

as i said i think a government has a moral obligation to support those who need it.

 

[Giardiasis]

cos not everyone agrees.

Well no-one that disagrees seems to have a viable argument. What are your reasons?

no it is not the question i am asking. governments receive income from a range of streams. personal income tax, business taxes, some profit from enterprise (tho this is less now than previously). from investments, from interest. there is more.

this income is put into a pool and then distributed.

i believe the government, as representatives of the people, have a moral obligation to help those in need, whether they be people who are unemployed, have a disability and cant support themselves, are frail aged (tho super will lessen this need), who have illness. etc.

there are countries that operate similar to way you advocate, at least as far as welfare goes. it leads to people begging on the street, (which you seem to be advocating for). it leads to people dying from the cold. it leads to people with physical disabilities crawling the streets begging for food. it leads to parents abandoning children with disabilities because they have no way of supporting them.

as i said i think a government has a moral obligation to support those who need it.

All those income streams you mention involve taking wealth away from others. Government doesn't not produce wealth. It can only take from private wealth. Sure it can create jobs, but that doesn't mean they produce wealth. The government does not operate under the conditions of profit and loss like the private sector because it has the power to take from others and/or to inflate. So please don't try and euphemise how the government collects revenue.

So what you want is to increase the utility of the unemployed (regardless of their personal decisions), and of people that can't look after themselves. Guess what? So do I! Personally I look to the science of human action, which logically deduces universal economic laws. These laws demonstrate that government spending not only consumes wealth, but it will be wasted compared to what would have happened had the government refrained from intervening. Individuals exchanging within a free market is the only process capable of providing the necessary information (money prices) to allow for economic calculation. Only through economic calculation and the division of labour can wealth and wellbeing for all be achieved. You talk of the moral obligation of the government, when what you mean is the moral obligation of other individuals. You value something (to help people in need), and wish for others to pay for it. Make moral arguments all you like, but forcing others to bend to your value set is neither just (hence it is immoral), nor the most effective way to help them.

There are no countries that operate in the way that I advocate.

 

[poppa x]

Government doesn't not produce wealth. It can only take from private wealth. Sure it can create jobs, but that doesn't mean they produce wealth

Disagree with this.
If the Gov't spends say on infrastructure then it generates profits for business and wages for employees. This is extra wealth for both,
And the Gov't receives more taxes from both.
How can you argue for example that the big spend on the Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme did not create wealth?

 

[Giardiasis]

Disagree with this.
If the Gov't spends say on infrastructure then it generates profits for business and wages for employees. This is extra wealth for both,
And the Gov't receives more taxes from both.
How can you argue for example that the big spend on the Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme did not create wealth?

Where do they get the money from in the first place to fund infrastructure projects? They get it through taking wealth from private industry and individuals. What would have happened had they not taxed and spent? Private industry and individuals would have used the wealth for other uses, which would have been spent/invested more efficiently than any group of central planners could hope to achieve.

The government says, "look at this power plant we have built. Look at the industry that is now possible because of us!" They only focus on what is seen. What is not seen is that without this tax and spend venture, a clothes manufacturer would have been created, or a new bridge, or something completely new developed. Had the government not built snowy hydro, Australians would all be wealthier today.