Inside the System

Fred,

Let's just say that, for you,  'The Cambridge Contraversy' must go the way of Sociology and Scientology.

You're free to take what you want out of the revenue pile  because there's a law that permits you to do so. In Germany, France, England, et al, not.

That's because of strong unions there that will push back. So rather than have a revenue aquabble (strikes, etc) democratically-elected governments step in to negotiate, just like that good American mathematician, Nash, said that they would do.

What's therefore prima facie absurd about the American Cambridge's 1955-ish position (MIT--your people!!) is that profit-as wage -compensation- for- ownership is so inversely variant with respect to worker's wages.

In other words, for MIT to have been correct, both wages and profits taken would both rise and lower together, commensurate to revenues. But this isn't the case. as Cambridge England has noted: profits and wages are what you can take with respect to force and favorable laws, irrespective of revenue.

Now all of this is clearly quantifiable, meaning above the capacity of Auburn/Austria to comprehend. They don't do math, remember/

Eva

re 42

No, I'm the one saying that  Austrian 'economics' doesn't do math, which is why it's not considered Economics.

Or you said,

>>>The Austrian school of economics is generally skeptical of data-driven models of the economy as a whole.<<<<

'generally skeptical' means they have done none.

That's why--assuming that you are talking from the pov of someone who accepts the Austrian stuff-- your remark about the common use of data piles being 'progressive' is prima facie rediculous. How would someone who rejects data piles to begin with know one data pile user  from the next?

In any case, anyone who knows half as much economics as you claim would be familiar with Fama, Hansen and Schiller's debate on commodity prices...and their commonly shared  data pool.

Lastly, you did set off this 'discussion' with this:

 The idea that there is one definitive data pile that can be objectively analyzed by economists is an inherently progressive view of the economy.>>>>

Okay, I'm tired of guessing what this could possibly mean. How are you defining 'progressive' to make this statement true (ostensibly contradicted by 2/3's the economists mentioned)? Why would this sentence be true in terms of data-pile usage?

EM

Robert,

No, the statement that Austrians were allergic to data and math is entirely my own. You're free to disagree with me that they aren't. You're likewise free to inform me that I was in error by having suggested that you held Austrian views.

Having written, however, >>>The Austrian school of economics is generally skeptical of data-driven models of the economy as a whole.<<<<

I honestly don't see much difference between your skeptical and my allergy.

You also wrote: >>>The idea that there is one definitive data pile that can be objectively analyzed by economists is an inherently progressive view of the economy.>>>>

I'm really not sure what this might mean. Might you therefore, kindly explain? It seems as if my previous glosses & guesses have been far off the mark...

Thx, Eva

Eva:

It is not your Lit Department?????

Wait a minute; you recently claimed that you 'submitted' my stream of concsiousness bon mots here to something called 'the Lit Department.'    I can only imagine that they had nothing better to do with their time.   In fact, were desperate for something -- anything -- to do, such that, they actually leaped at the chance to be directed by a second year student who strolled in from Psyche with some scrapings from the In-ter-net. 

"Look!  Something to do!  Wake up the Department!   Put away the velour and paper mache, this shit is suddenly getting real now!  Cancel the bus trip to the PA Renaissance Faire--have we made a deposit yet??!?!?  Our own EM has found bon mots to 'submit' to us!"

Might as well be your Lit Department, if they can be so easily directed.  

Say, are you into Improv at your Dust Bunny U?    Isn't that 'Dirty South Festival ' thing comming up soon?  Great beer pong.   http://www.dsicomedytheater.com/

Or, does the whole 'rats in the maze thing' just absolutely kill the schedule?    Next time, try this; just walk by the door to the Lit Department, whisper "Look!  A squirrel!" and see how they react.   Stimulus....response.

Oncle F.

Eva:

But this isn't the case. as Cambridge England has noted: profits and wages are what you can take with respect to force and favorable laws, irrespective of revenue.

Well, when I was not worshipping Samuelson as 'the' spokesman for 'the' MIT, I occasionally had the odd moment to actually dabble in profits and wages respective of revenues-- not to ever be confused(by me, at least) with talking about profits and wages irrespective of revenues.     As best as I can tell, your statement above is related to the musings of labor leader A. Philip Randolph, who I have always regarded as catching the exact sentiment precisely:

"At the banquet table of Nature, there are no reserved seats.  You get what you can take; you keep what you can hold...."  and then, went on to extol the must haves of mobbed up connections, labor unions and so on.

You've extended this noble idea somewhat by suggesting that, at some point in my negotiations with my non-existing employees, an activist government will insert itself at my annual corporate meeting to guide the negotiations -- to arrive at a fair and equitable outcome, I assume, a balance of profits(with my fringe model, I get all of those--all of the losses, too, in theory)and wages(with my fringe model, I get all of those, too.).   MW, perhaps?   Because the lesson, for me, was "You get what you can take; you keep what you can hold."   Turned out, I can take all of it and can hold all of it, too.   There are all kinds of gratifying challenges in life; sometimes, created by our ratcake politics.  The challenge of doing business without employees, it turns out, was not much of a challenge at all.   Let's hope that dirty little secret never gets out.

So, every year for the last 30 years at my lonely annual meeting, I politely wait for either your hypothesized representative from the government or equally, A. Philip himself, to show up, so we can begin to negotiate over profits and wages irrespective of revenue, and in my minute books, alas, it is always the same sad lament:  "DNS (did not show.)"    Pointless to point out, it was the same story, but, similar for the Caymans Corp.   Laws different in the US? The Hell you say..   But I did do business in the UK (for UK MoD.)   I did do business in Europe.   I did do business in M.E.   I did do business in Asia.   I did do business in South America.   I did do business in Africa.    Hell, I had paying customers from Thule to McMurdo.  I had a paying customer at the Havana Airport...and it was the lawyer at the Cuba Desk in the State Dept who spelled out exactly how I was permitted to do that.  So please, tell me about all these different labor laws, and doing business in the US vs what I am permitted to do in France and England and so on.  These are riveting theories.  I am all ears.  

In 30 years, other than as a customer, the gov't did actually show up for guidance one year.   It was to audit my pensions plans.   I thanked the IRS field agent for showing up to make sure I wasn't screwing myself over.   Only took her a couple days.   I even had the necessary notices pinned on my wall, telling me I was eligible for my company pension plans.   Check.    The nation slept better after that, I'm sure.

Fortunately you have no need to actually do this, because it is impossible, but here is what you would  need to improve this clumsy tribal model in these fringe incidents of freedom breaking out:

1] A time machine.

2] A gun.

3] A workable plan to use 1] and 2] in such a manner as to go back in time and convince a young 26 yr old man to arrange his affairs in such a manner as to immolate his life on the pyre of your tribal theories regarding wages and profits irrespective of revenue, perhaps by, on this lap around the temporal shift, actually hiring employees and negotiating with a mob.

Total non starter, of course.   So, how can I help you looking ahead with this Great Plan?   No need for 1] at least.    How is it, exactly, that you discourage other fringe 26 yr old young men and women today from making similar choices and choosing similar challenges?   Training?  Education?  Guilt? Is that enough?   Well, you don't really have to do that at all, because he is fringe in those choices.   And, speaking only for me, I was greatful for that lack of tribal attention.

How are motivated 26 year olds prevented from making choices and choosing challenges similar to those I once freely chose?   Or is it a given that some are put on this earth to organize large enterprises, appease stockholders, coddle employees, and be vilified for squeezing all the profit out of the virtuous True Working Men and Women of the world?

No thanks, I once said, and found a way -- an easy way -- to take a pass on all that total tribal bullshit.    But make up your mind world; are those poor slobs bastards because they hire people and suck all the profit out of their hides, or are they bastards because they don't(the current lament/whine from Obama to those still seeking his permission to be.)?  Ha!

So good luck with that.  There are plenty still buying it.  (Why, I have no idea, but not my problem.)   I refrained from being a vulture.  I took less from 'the' tribal pile of revenue-- you know, the pile that falls from the skies, unabetted.   By doing so, I left more for the virtuous working men and women of the world to scoop up.   In so doing, I met other challenges, and sleep like a baby, fully confident that freedom can still erupt in this world for those who seek it, as well as the surprisingly satisfying face of social justice, which is coming as a complete shock to the swill sellers and buyers, I would imagine.

Oncle F.

Fred,

>>.Might as well be your Lit Department, if they can be so easily directed. <<<

I'm deeply flattered. At first, it was my overdone influence at having dated one of the PhD candidates --deconstructed abstract theory of dead languages, etc...but now it's turned into a veritable Fred-ology.

EM

re# 49

Fred,

Yes, most union leaders do accept the Cambridge, England position that the grab for revenue above constant cost is a free-for-all. To this end, yes, they do want government to intervene with a negotiation.

This might best be seen in the issue raised by the workers at the new VW plant having voted against unionization; German ownership simply doesn't know what to  do; their charter with the german government requires worker participation!

Interestingly enough, however, some American unionists don't, saying that they'd rather engage management directly, without government interference.

In any case, congratulations, again!

Not content with opening an acrimonious debate on 'Fred-ology' (terrorist plant or a Hemmingway wannabe?), you've now become the poster-child of Cambridge, England's long-standing position that wage and profit-siezure really is an inverse-relational sort of thing, mathematically speaking.

You, in any case, can grab-and -run as a foreigner; locals must face the dire consequence of class warfare. In other wordsa, poverty in the USA normally expresses itself as poor-on poor crime. The experience elsewhere is different...

Eva