Economics is one of the most impartial academic fields. The deference to market principles is due to the empirical evidence showing they promote economic efficiency, and not bias.
If anything, the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics. You now see more economists trying to rationalize minimum wage for example.
I suspect bias is introduced as people dependent on union privileges create and promulgate ideological justifications for the laws that empower unions.
This shapes the cultural mores of society, resulting in positions favorable to unions becoming perceived as morally superior.
How strong is the evidence behind homo economicus? As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths.
And, umm, "started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics"? May I introduce you to the field of Marxist economics? It's only about 150 years old. It's not like unions, and the effects of unions on economics, is anything new.
Richard D. Wolff is likely the most vocal of American Marxist economists, with many videos on YouTube.
Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions?
Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment:
> The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.
> The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.
> Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.
> Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed
> It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
Anyway, mainstream economics (which does not include Marxism) has increasingly become accepting to leftist ideas over the last few decades, which is part of a larger trend in academia, and in the Humanities and Social Sciences in particular, of moving increasingly to the left.
>>As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths.
People do follow rational behaviour models that incorporate iteration and bounded rationality.
>>Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions?
You can read up on rent-seeking on Wikipedia.
As far as I can see, all union profit-seeking activity is rent-seeking.
>>Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment:
The NLRA takes the approach of appeasement toward violent strikers, in the form of legal codes that effectively rob employers of their private property by way of rules that usurp their control over it.
I think it's reasonable to assume that absent the rent-seeking activity of unions in manipulating public opinion, the polity would enforce free market rules in governing labor practices.
It's interesting that you use the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda.
What do you think it means? Because to me it sounds like you aren't distinguishing between politically Marxist and economically Marxian, when I was only referring to the latter.
In case you hadn't noticed, the entire freaking country has been moving towards the left, including the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and LGBTQ rights.
So, whoo-hoo - Harvard researchers no longer support scientific racism.
Have you considered that academia might be accepting these ideas because they have stronger evidentiary support for them than the older ideas? As it stands, your comment reads as "it's from the left therefore it must be wrong."
To to back to the reason I mentioned Marxism, I bought it up because you proposed that these 'leftist ideological biases' were somehow new to economics theory. The introduction of these ideas in economics started 150 years ago.
I read the rent-seeking topic on Wikipedia, but it offered no insight into your declaration that "All union profit-seeking is rent-seeking". It is quite careful to say:
> Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.[6] Profit-seeking in this sense is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is "profiteering" by using social institutions, such as the power of the state, to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth
It distinguishes between profit-seeking and rent-seeking, but you do not appear to do so. Perhaps you should read the page?
I have elsewhere pointed out how unions don't necessarily depend on the power of the state in order to leverage collective bargaining.
I have looked for but failed to find a mention about unions on that page.
So, please describe how all union activity is rent-seeking.
Furthermore, the page says "In many market-driven economies, much of the competition for rents is legal, regardless of harm it may do to an economy."
Are you trying to assert that all rent seeking should be illegal? Or only that union rent seeking should be illegal?
Based in what you ended with, you're the sort of died-in-the-wool libertarian that capitalists love to have around.
Are you one of the people who thinks that the Koch brothers aren't using their billions to manipulate public opinion against unions?
If not, what does rational choice theory suggest is the reason for their funding of so many right-wing and libertarian organizations?
>>which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda.
Marxist doctrine is sophomoric demagoguery, wrapped in pseudo-economic quackery, to rationalize totalitarianism. Every society where it has been put into practice has seen itself descend into hellish tyranny.
It has led to governments killing tens of millions, and effectively enslaving hundreds of millions more.
In more moderate doses, it has led to wage stagnation, the erosion of the manufacturing sector, and the breakdown of the two-parent family. It has created large monopolistic social welfare bureaucracies with rent-seeking stakeholders who are incentivized to promote an ideological narrative to justify their rent-seeking livelihoods.
Anyway, while I don't feel particularly inclined to debate with someone who believes in an ideology every bit as damnable as fascism, and who resorts to mendacious defamation like accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism", I feel a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue going.
However this isn't the best forum for it. Please create a post in Reddit or a similarly appropriate forum, provide me with the link, and we can resume this there.
But all you did was react to the word "Marx" as if I were a supporter of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.
Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. Because I don't. I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics.
As a reminder, South Africa banned the Communist Party because it was integrated. That part of leftist ideology is now mainstream, which is another example that just because something is part of leftist ideology - and Communist to boost - doesn't mean it's wrong.
If that's what you know about Marxian economics then you know so little about economics that it's no wonder that you think these are somehow new ideas.
You wrote "You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil."
Please quote whatever it is you think where I said that. Because you are seriously misreading what I wrote. Instead, you appear to be viewing everything through libertarian glasses, and rejecting any evidence counter to your beliefs.
I never talked about Marxism as a political doctrine. Quoting again from the Wikipedia page for Marxian economics (emphasis mine):
> Marxian economics, particularly in academia, is distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology as well as the normative aspects of Marxist thought, with the view that Marx's original approach to understanding economics and economic development is intellectually independent from Marx's own advocacy of revolutionary socialism.[2][3] Marxian economists do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists, but draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.[4]
You write that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil.".
I did not. This is another example of you seeing things which aren't there.
I wrote: It's interesting that you use the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda.
The term "promoting Marxism" in the US is used as a slur against any idea which is, broadly speaking, "socialist", not just the revolutionary socialism of Marx.
For example, if you promote single-payer health care in the US, you might be tarred with the brush "promoting Marxism", even though socialized medicine in every other industrialized country is not seen as being part of Marxism.
You wrote: "How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?"
I again quote from the Wikipedia page on Marxian economics (emphasis mine):
> Although the Marxian school is considered heterodox, ideas that have come out of Marxian economics have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy; certain concepts of Marxian economics, especially those related to capital accumulation and the business cycle, such as creative destruction, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems.
Why don't you ask mainstream economists why they found Marxian economics to be useful?
Since it's one of the "most impartial academic fields" according to you, that must mean that some parts of Marxian economics are useful.
If you don't understand that Marxism is quack economics that leads to ruin anywhere its model for reality is taken seriously, then you are either emotionally too attached to an ideology, or have an ulterior motive not aligned with the interests of society.
Marx's characterization of profit as theft against the worker is economic quackery, and clearly forwarded for political purposes, to create a moral rationalization for redistributive revolution and centralization of economic forces.
>>Please quote whatever it is you think where I said that.
The line where you mention Americans.
>>I again quote from the Wikipedia page on Marxian economics (emphasis mine):
You're quoting from Wikipedia without answering the question.
My question is an extremely important one, with implications for the basic viability of the Marxism model of economics, and for its potential impact on society, and yet basically deflected it.
>>Why don't you ask mainstream economists why they found Marxian economics to be useful?
Mainstream economists do not consider Marxism a serious school of economic thought.
Undoubtedly among the tens of thousands of trained economists, you can find a small number of outliers who have extracted some conceptual tools from the Marxist toolkit, but by and large, Marxism is seen as something approaching pseudo-science.
You have not yet shown that you understand the difference between Marxism as a political ideology vs. Marx's influences on other fields, including economics.
In case, I mentioned Marxian economics because you somehow erroneously proposed that "the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics". Whatever influence there is started at least a century ago. This isn't something new.
I "deflected" the question? You asked "How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?" I'm not answering that question because that's not the end-all and be-all of Marxian economics, and I never proposed or defended Marx's value theory.
Since your question was ill-posed, I answered the question you should have asked, which is "How can you say that Marxian economics is useful", and the answer is that I can point to places where Marxian economics has become part of orthodox economics.
Tell me, are you also one of those people who argues against evolution by pointing to problems in the writings of Darwinism? Or against modern psychology by pointing to the cuckoo theories of Freud? Since that's the logical fallacy you keep repeating by equating Marxian economics with Marxism.
You still haven't described why your argument that union actions are only based on rent-seeking is true. It's seems, based on your other HN comments, that "rent seeking" is a magic phrase you use to complain about things you don't like.
You suggested I read the Wikipedia on "Rent-seeking", so surely you must have read it as well, and in doing so you must have come across the comment: "Critics of the concept point out that, in practice, there may be difficulties distinguishing between beneficial profit-seeking and detrimental rent-seeking."
This brings the conversation back to a question you still haven't answered. I asked "Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions?"
I want to see you actually explain it, because I don't think you understand the details. My review of the literature shows that there have many many attempts to establish this, but it's difficult to show that the models are actually true in real life. For one, if it were true rent seeking then we would expect unions to be most effective in prosperous companies, which have more rent to seek. Instead, they are more likely to form in companies
Moreover, there are economics models (like in Agell 2001) which result in unions even if there is no rent seeking. Agell considers unions as a form of "social insurance of otherwise uninsurable risks".
Nor have you justified your assertion that unions only exist because of government laws protecting them, and because of a union threat of violence, and how they would not exist in a free market. You continue to make this assertion even when I gave a specific counter-example. Reality does not seem to fit your worldview.
You said that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil". When I asked for clarification, you pointed to "The line where you mention Americans."
I have reviewed the entire thread and can find no place where I mention Americans.
Please quote it for me as I am unable to find it.
I did write: ... the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda.
I also explained what I meant, that is, it is used to attack even non-Marxist socialist ideas and concepts by associating them with the Marxist political concepts that contributed to the atrocities under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.
I believe that is also the way you are using the term, and I believe that it's part of a decades-long propaganda effort which started in the 1930s as part of the effort to tear down the New Deal - an effort which is still ongoing, and part of the reason why the Koch brothers fund so many libertarian organizations. (For a more historical precursor, another example is Joseph Coors.)
I may be wrong, but this is hardly the same as "criticizing Americans for seeing Marxism as evil."
Just like my observation that culture has been moving left-ward over the century such that mainstream academic beliefs in scientific racism are now no longer held IS NOT AT ALL the same as "accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of scientific racism".
The reason you are unable to quote me is because I never said what you think I'm saying.
I find nothing wrong with this venue. No one is reading this thread any more so it's not like it's even bothering anyone else.
Yet another way to shut down debate is to force a venue change. Which is what you are doing.
It would have been a lot shorter had you not confused the political and specific economic theories of Marx with Marxian economics and with what I was saying.
It would have been a lot shorter if you had read my reference to Commonwealth v. Hunt and realized the historical evidence didn't fit into your economic model.
And I don't see this as a "debate", because debates are such an awful way to resolve differences. They are more often grandstanding venues to try to convince observers of the veracity of one's viewpoint.
If anything, the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics. You now see more economists trying to rationalize minimum wage for example.
I suspect bias is introduced as people dependent on union privileges create and promulgate ideological justifications for the laws that empower unions.
This shapes the cultural mores of society, resulting in positions favorable to unions becoming perceived as morally superior.