undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCryptoPunk6y ago0 comments

1. Ironically, you just strawmanned me. I never said all left-wing economic theories are "conspiracy theories" or fallacies, or that all left-leaning people are susceptible to such theories.

But to your strawman, Piketty's observation turns out to be entirely explainable by real estate:

https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra...

2. I wasn't contradicting your assertion at all. I was just claiming that it's a very common belief within left-leaning circles that economists' claims of the social benefits of free markets are propaganda formulated by and pushed for the benefit of a capitalist elite.

This conspiratorial view of the economic science is similar to anti-vaxxer theories about Big Pharma and Big Gov being behind the scientific opions on the efficacy of vaccines.

>>As you can see, I don't believe that "price controls like minimum wage" are the right solution to that problem.

Going back to 1, I wasn't generalizing all left-leaning people. Just as all right-leaning people don't believe in anti-vaxxer theories, not all left-leaning people believe in price controls like rent control and minimum wage.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

eesmith6y ago· 2 in thread

If you aren't strawmanning then your characterizations like "the ignorance of the left-wing base" and "Left-wing misconceptions" are not informative as you don't give a guideline how influential or proportional they are.

The specific validity of Piketty's observation is irrelevant. I mention it as an example of an argument which is not based on the "idea that there's a capitalist conspiracy".

Focusing on the weaker conspiratorial argument and leaving out any more substantive arguments = strawmanning.

Criticizing sweeping language for its imprecision is not strawmanning.

You switched from "The idea that there's a capitalist conspiracy to trick the populace into believing that free markets are better for public welfare" to "a very common belief within left-leaning circles that economists' claims of the social benefits of free markets are propaganda formulated by and pushed for the benefit of a capitalist elite".

What makes something a "conspiracy"? Because your latter formulation doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.

My position is that people who advocate for a "free market" but don't advocate removing the existing severe restrictions on labor power aren't really promoting a free market, but rather want to give more power to capital owners.

CryptoPunkOP6y ago

>>are not informative as you don't give a guideline how influential or proportional they are.

My point was only that it exists in high enough proportions to be impactful, and juxtapositioned it with the ignorance seen in the conservative base.

My broader point is that the widespread ignorance seen in the left-wing base is largely ignored, in contrast to the ignorance seen in the right-wing base, which is rightly ridiculed.

>>What makes something a "conspiracy"? Because your latter formulation doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.

The latter formulation is a conspiracy theory, and one that is completely baseless and borne from ignorance of the economic science.

Economists, free from any undue influence, have almost universally come to the conclusion that markets free of government intervention beyond enforcing criminal and contract law, are more efficient, and effective at advancing the public welfare, in almost all domains other than those subject to market failure (e.g. natural monopolies, and markets subject to positive or negative externalities best addressed by government provisioned public goods, etc).

eesmith6y ago

"Impactful" is such a wishy-washy term.

When done poorly - which I think you have done - another term for your juxtaposition is "false equivalence".

I asked "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'". You have not answered but only asserted.

To your last paragraph, I again point out that "markets free of government intervention" must necessarily include being free of government intervention with respect to labor power. Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop.

Anyone not supporting a repeal of Taft-Hartley and related labor laws cannot be in support of a free market, by your definition.

But many of the people I hear who advocate for a 'free market' support those anti-labor laws. Indeed, there is an almost complete lack of discussion on the topic.

Ergo, they aren't actually supporting a free market.

You tell me - why aren't more free market economists calling for the repeal of Taft-Hartley?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse