Economics, like history, has, for the past 50 years, been immersed in the idea of change being due to collections of individuals. This assumes that the individuals have access to information relevant to the change. This raises the question: Who is suppressing information about the relationship between worker supply and wages? We have the same question about housing in the UK: Who is suppressing the relationship between house prices/rentals and population growth?
It comes back to power and wealth. It is not the Marxist workers who ultimately control society. It is the rich and powerful. It is here that the disconnection occurs between the biology of the individual and the social experience of the individual. We live in a fantasy world where the narratives favour oligarchs who wear T-shirts and rattle on about their philanthropy whilst manipulating everyone for their own benefit.
Bravo! Delusional ‘thinking’ about the effect of wage-pool growth on earners in the lower echelons is such a major (and ubiquitous) obstacle to productive dialogue. Thanks for the well reasoned retort. Maybe the pinheads on my side of the political football - the left - can finally start getting hip. Because their pathetically weak political skills are hobbled by their self-delusion on this issue more substantially and consequentially than any other.
This requirement that economics is conciliatory with biology underscores how elegant and useful the methodological dualism employed by Mises with praxeology really is. It is also useful and interesting to look under the hood with evolutionary psychology and get context clues from anthropology, but if you're generating models that aren't conciliatory with the basic logic of human action you open the door wide for self-deception, especially if you're a parasitic affiliate of the professional managerial class.
> Yet, you do not see the nannies, gardeners, and other personal services to the rich in anywhere near the same scale in Australia as in the US and the UK. Australian car washes are still mechanised.
Here in the far reaches of Sydney's North Shore Line, mechanised car washes slightly less common than manual ones. I think I know where there is one nearby, overall they are much less common than in the '90s. Also, like other educated middle-class families struggling to pay the mortgage we have a nanny, a gardener and a cleaner.
I don't think this country is all that different from the rest of the Anglosphere.
A stimulating article.
It is amusing that the Bank of England freely admits that wages are linked to the supply of labour (See http://www.thereandwhere.com/images/wagesandworkforce.png ) but the UK/USA mass media denies this.
Economics, like history, has, for the past 50 years, been immersed in the idea of change being due to collections of individuals. This assumes that the individuals have access to information relevant to the change. This raises the question: Who is suppressing information about the relationship between worker supply and wages? We have the same question about housing in the UK: Who is suppressing the relationship between house prices/rentals and population growth?
It comes back to power and wealth. It is not the Marxist workers who ultimately control society. It is the rich and powerful. It is here that the disconnection occurs between the biology of the individual and the social experience of the individual. We live in a fantasy world where the narratives favour oligarchs who wear T-shirts and rattle on about their philanthropy whilst manipulating everyone for their own benefit.
Bravo! Delusional ‘thinking’ about the effect of wage-pool growth on earners in the lower echelons is such a major (and ubiquitous) obstacle to productive dialogue. Thanks for the well reasoned retort. Maybe the pinheads on my side of the political football - the left - can finally start getting hip. Because their pathetically weak political skills are hobbled by their self-delusion on this issue more substantially and consequentially than any other.
This requirement that economics is conciliatory with biology underscores how elegant and useful the methodological dualism employed by Mises with praxeology really is. It is also useful and interesting to look under the hood with evolutionary psychology and get context clues from anthropology, but if you're generating models that aren't conciliatory with the basic logic of human action you open the door wide for self-deception, especially if you're a parasitic affiliate of the professional managerial class.
> Yet, you do not see the nannies, gardeners, and other personal services to the rich in anywhere near the same scale in Australia as in the US and the UK. Australian car washes are still mechanised.
Here in the far reaches of Sydney's North Shore Line, mechanised car washes slightly less common than manual ones. I think I know where there is one nearby, overall they are much less common than in the '90s. Also, like other educated middle-class families struggling to pay the mortgage we have a nanny, a gardener and a cleaner.
I don't think this country is all that different from the rest of the Anglosphere.