Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Pretty much every mainstream economist. Piketty, Roubini, and Cowen note the downsides of neoliberal economic policies on labor in developed economies. But even they shrug and say, “It’s just how global expansion coupled with extreme tech advances work.”

As I said, my criticism isn’t that economists failed to find a cure. There are only palliative measures to be applied for now. It’s that they failed to get ahead of the problem, and they decried all concerns as Luddite behaviors, or as Adder has, Malthusian.

Economists are quite doctrinaire, binary in thought, and quick to herd and exclude critics. More so than other disciplines, I think, from insecurity that theirs is not a science.

Name one please. Just give me a sense of who these nasty neoliberals are. Krugman? Friedman? Stiglitz? Hayek? Galbraith? I've found it to be a trite phrase, especially in economics, thrown at someone you don't like, without any real specificity. The folks who used it mid-century all backed away from it, no one seems to introduce themselves at a cocktail party, Hi, I'm a neoliberal economist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Name one please. Just give me a sense of who these nasty neoliberals are. Krugman? Friedman? Stiglitz? Hayek? Galbraith? I've found it to be a trite phrase, especially in economics, thrown at someone you don't like, without any real specificity. The folks who used it mid-century all backed away from it, no one seems to introduce themselves at a cocktail party, Hi, I'm a neoliberal economist.

If he's including Piketty and Cowen, he's excluding Marxists and Austrians. In other words, when he says neoliberal economists, he means economists.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wage stagnation has remained a persistent problem since 2008.

And labor participation is not explained by boomer retirements. That’s the herd talking. Consider how many retirees don’t have enough to quit, and remain in the workforce.

This isn’t a neat narrative. It’s immensely complex. Far too complex to be shrugged off with a historical analysis of “cycles” from a “science” about as accurate than one’s palm reader.

This tech thing’s been with us for a few decades now. If you were correct about new tech creating more and better jobs over a relevant timeline, new jobs would be outstripped able bodies to fill them 2:1.

ETA: Each recovery since 1990 has been categorized as jobless. Quite accurately, particularly if one looks at jobs paying living wages, rather than low end service jobs.

Damn, I have never seen such a huge steaming pile of neoliberalism as this post.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If he's including Piketty and Cowen, he's excluding Marxists and Austrians. In other words, when he says neoliberal economists, he means economists.

Neoliberals are like a pair of nice loafers. We're told they exist, but damned if I've ever seen one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe.



Arguably, they have recently started to. Regardless, issues with income distribution pre-date and are not explained by the most recent business cycle and existed in prior periods of higher labor force participation.



That's not really true, but we've been over that before.



I don't see Sebby saying any of what you said. And his techno-babble gloom and doom is repackaged Malthusianism.

Automation has been a factor in how things have changed, but probably less so than the 30+ years of upwardly redistributing government policy. It's funny how when you keep cutting the taxes of the rich and restricting government spending on programs that support the poor, everyone who isn't rich doesn't do as well.

Have you heard the one about the neoliberal who walked into a bar?

The bartender asked him why he didn't have shoes on.

And he said, "Let's assume I have a pair of nice loafers..."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Name one please. Just give me a sense of who these nasty neoliberals are. Krugman? Friedman? Stiglitz? Hayek? Galbraith? I've found it to be a trite phrase, especially in economics, thrown at someone you don't like, without any real specificity. The folks who used it mid-century all backed away from it, no one seems to introduce themselves at a cocktail party, Hi, I'm a neoliberal economist.

All of those would be neoliberal economists.

I don't use it as a term for someone I don't like. As I stated, it's a pragmatic school of economics.

The problem I see with embracing it as most economists have done is they laud its positives and refuse to assess its negatives. For instance, a tenet of the school is a market based view of the world. This reduces almost everything to a commodity. Which, of course, turns people into commodities. Of course they've always been commodities, but neoliberal economics have accelerated the dehumanization.

A purely neoliberal view of the current situation wouldn't see the economy as having any problems at all. Technically, the economy is in pretty good shape. It's only when we input the societal problems occasioned by the changes within it, and the impact on workers, and the inequality within it, that one sees a less than rosy economic picture.

Neoliberal economic policy insists on expansion of global trade and labor arbitrage. It also favors removal of labor via technological advances. These are all positive advances. Except when you factor in what becomes of the displaced labor.

Neoliberal policies as currently applied ignore too much until its too late.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Arguably, they have recently started to. Regardless, issues with income distribution pre-date and are not explained by the most recent business cycle and existed in prior periods of higher labor force participation.

Okay. It's been bad for longer than I stated. The economic crisis simply made it even worse.

That's not really true, but we've been over that before.

Actually, it is. Unless you believe it's boomers retiring.

I don't see Sebby saying any of what you said. And his techno-babble gloom and doom is repackaged Malthusianism.

http://www.epi.org/publication/chart...ge-stagnation/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te-since-1990/

Automation has been a factor in how things have changed, but probably less so than the 30+ years of upwardly redistributing government policy.

I agree both are problems. Labor unions could fix a good bit of this, but they're so fucked right now, that's hopeless.

And you know why they're fucked? Because automation and globalized labor market expansion undercut the only leverage workers have had or ever will have.

It's funny how when you keep cutting the taxes of the rich and restricting government spending on programs that support the poor, everyone who isn't rich doesn't do as well.

It's funny how when you allow a situation to emerge in which labor's sole leverage is eliminated, labor has no leverage.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

All of those would be neoliberal economists.

I don't use it as a term for someone I don't like. As I stated, it's a pragmatic school of economics.

The problem I see with embracing it as most economists have done is they laud its positives and refuse to assess its negatives. For instance, a tenet of the school is a market based view of the world. This reduces almost everything to a commodity. Which, of course, turns people into commodities. Of course they've always been commodities, but neoliberal economics have accelerated the dehumanization.

A purely neoliberal view of the current situation wouldn't see the economy as having any problems at all. Technically, the economy is in pretty good shape. It's only when we input the societal problems occasioned by the changes within it, and the impact on workers, and the inequality within it, that one sees a less than rosy economic picture.

Neoliberal economic policy insists on expansion of global trade and labor arbitrage. It also favors removal of labor via technological advances. These are all positive advances. Except when you factor in what becomes of the displaced labor.

Neoliberal policies as currently applied ignore too much until its too late.

Thanks for confirming that you use it as a term for people and things you dislike.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thanks for confirming that you use it as a term for people and things you dislike.

Where in there do I say I dislike it? Use my words. Not your characterization of my words.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wage stagnation has remained a persistent problem since 2008.

No, it's much older than that.

And labor participation is not explained by boomer retirements.

It mostly is. As we've discussed, prime age participation is slightly below the pre-recession peak and roughly inline with mid-1990s normal. Yes, that's still below the late-1990s peak and even the pre-2001 recession peak. Problem just isn't as big as you think it is.

That’s the herd talking.

No, that's the numbers talking.

Consider how many retirees don’t have enough to quit, and remain in the workforce.

They can't both be still working and not in the labor force.

This tech thing’s been with us for a few decades now.

It began in the 1970s. Every measured prime age labor force participation that was higher than today's was after the age of automation began.

You're looking at a Solow world and seeing Malthus.

ETA: Each recovery since 1990 has been categorized as jobless.

No, that's not right. And if you're trying to argue that the labor market is bleak relative to all of the 20th Century and not just relative to the late 1990s boom, you're even more wrong.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Use my words. Not your characterization of my words.

Wait, what? You saying this is as close to the purest definition of irony we have ever seen on these lawyer chatting boards. Someone call SEC Chick!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Neoliberals are like a pair of nice loafers. We're told they exist, but damned if I've ever seen one.

Quite the opposite. In Sebby's world, just about everyone wears loafer. A loafer is a soled thing that goes on your foot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Quite the opposite. In Sebby's world, just about everyone wears loafer. A loafer is a soled thing that goes on your foot.

A neo-liberal economist walked into a bar, where he bent down to tie his nice loafers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

A neo-liberal economist walked into a bar, where he bent down to tie his nice loafers.

A person walked into a bar. Sebby said, hello Neo-Liberal Economist.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A cat walked into a bar. Sebby said, hello Neo-Liberal Economist.

Fixed that for you. Now it sounds more like Sebby.


Knock knock.

Who's there?

Joe.

Joe wh.... Oh, shit, another neo-liberal economist.