[dstorrs]

Yep, many economists do work for those institutions. And yep, all of them have /some/ particular axe to grind (everyone does -- I do, you do, etc). That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct.

- Businesses are, in fact, what generates most of the wealth and innovation in a country

- Taxes, whether personal or corporate, are not economically efficient. Government can be compared to an electrical grid -- the money comes in one place, flows out somewhere else, and there are line losses on the way. (Government overhead, wastage, etc)

- As to workers' rights: any society represents a particular set of choices about production needs and social needs. Sometimes those needs are cooperative, sometimes orthogonal, and sometimes they are in opposition. When "workers' rights" means "give us the money and the time to innovate and consume outside of work", it's good for society. When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society.

[kiujhgbnj]

But it does suggest that economics is just politics by another name.

A survey of doctors would presumably agree on the function of an organ, a survey of hospital administrators might also agree on the need to cut treatment costs - this doesn't mean the opinions are equally accurate.

[mdda]

The labelling that you've chosen "pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights" is politics itself.

The economists are more accurately characterized by 'anti-distortion'. The amount of distortion that should be accepted (for instance, to protect the disabled) is a matter of politics, but the article only addresses consensus issues.

[kiujhgbnj]

True, but the article implies that "economists all agree on these things, economists are experts - therefore these things are correct"

But the same responses would come from US politicians of both types - would Swedish or French economists have the same views?

[ippisl]

- Businesses are, in fact, what generates most of the wealth and innovation in a country

wealth and innovation are not the only things worth optimizing , nor are they the most important.

[gaius]

Money, not necessarily. But wealth means "stuff people want".

[ippisl]

according to this definition farmville , booze and cocaine are "wealth". So people who are using those on a daily basis should be considered wealthy ?

on the other hand , aren't good relationships considered wealth by your definition ? Businesses do relatively little to facilitate those(in more primitive societies they still had relationships , and probably at least as good as ours).

[hxa7241]

> That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct.

But it can mean they are only seeing one small area of what is possibly correct. There could be many other correct things out there, that might be even better, but their view is constrained.

[scrod]

>When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society.

You've somehow managed to bring two logical fallacies in the same sentence — the straw man and the false dichotomy. No one genuinely struggling for the rights of workers ever advocates for either of those ways, and those outcomes aren't by any means the only possible alternatives.

The purpose of unions has always been to bargain collectively in situations where individual actions alone would result in a greater detriment to each worker. A corporation is by nature this same mechanism applied in the market, so which side you prefer — the worker or the owner — is fundamentally one of politics in the end.

[dstorrs]

>You've somehow managed to bring two logical fallacies in the same sentence — the straw man and the false dichotomy.

You're misreading.

I presented two possibilities, but nowhere did I claim that they were the only two possibilities -- ergo, no false dichotomy. You aren't clear about where exactly you believe that I presented a straw man, so I can't respond to that one. If you're saying that modern union shops do not result in the sort of inefficiencies I mention above, then the kindest response I can find is that we must have very different experience of union shops. I invite you to examine the union-imposed rules at, e.g., Yale Medical School, which is what I was particularly thinking of when I wrote that.

> The purpose of unions has always been to bargain collectively in situations where individual actions alone would result in a greater detriment to each worker.

Thank you for that basic restatement of the definition of "union." You did, however, leave out the important bit: that the nature of union bargaining is always the workers of a corporation demanding policy changes from the owners of a corporation.[1] These changes always involve a cost which reduces the bottom line profit of the corporation -- e.g. higher pay, shorter hours, etc. From a strictly short-term, monetary POV, anything that reduces the bottom line is non-optimal. In the long term, however, or when other measuring sticks are used (social health, GDP, etc) these changes may be enormously better than the policies they replace, because they result in more total wealth in the hands of the consumer, more leisure time in which to consume / innovate / create / be healthy / etc.

This is exactly what I said in my original post. Hopefully you will more clearly understand the more spelled-out version.

> A corporation is by nature this same mechanism [for using collective action when individual action would be sub-optimal] applied in the market, so which side you prefer — the worker or the owner — is fundamentally one of politics in the end.

While this is technically true (as in, it does not contain an explicit inaccuracy), there are some significant differences between a corporation and a union. Most notably, the benefits of being in a union accrue essentially equally to all members, whereas the benefits of being in a corporation do not -- the owners and top officers reap far more of the rewards than the "bottom rung" employees. Furthermore, their incentive structures are very different -- a tech support guy is paid $N/year as long as he shows up for work and the company doesn't go bust (incentive to keep the status quo), but the CEO is making most of his money off of stock options and/or bonus (incentive to change the status quo).

[1] I'm using the word "corporation" loosely here because it's more commonly applicable and it's easier than naming the various possible employing bodies (government, NGO, non-profit, etc). Most often it's a corporation per se.

[pedanticfreak]

Re: Taxes

Keep in mind the polar opposite of the power grid is that everyone keeps a personal generator they build with their own hands and continually feed fuel they gather with their own hands.

Sometimes a little ineffiency in one place allows you to be more efficient in other places. Don't knock the power grid and transitively the federal government.