Skip to main content

More Freedom, More Jobs...


And just as I was being driven to despair by people spouting 19th Century nonsense about labour markets being oppressive this and impoverishing that, along come Donald J. Boudreaux and Bryan Caplan, with an extra appearance by Don Bellante, to cleanse the palate.

Boudreaux maintains a wonderful blog called Cafe Hayek where he shares what's on his mind re economics and history. Boudreaux is one of two guys who can be found giving academic-level lectures on the most common objections to the existence of the capitalist mode of production.

Between him and Timothy D. Terrell the case in favour is made with reference to such things as the EFW Report, the hockey-stick graph, and the price in terms of work hours of goods and services over the last however many decades.

EFW results showing the superior performance - at least after several decades of consistent application - of less government involvement in trade as opposed to more. A more detailed look at the basis for these graphs can be found here. Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Back to labour markets. The contention by many ridiculous people is that labour markets are examples of so-called buyers' markets, or monopsonies, the mirror image of monopolies. in which the buyer's enjoy some kind of market power. Just look at the unemployment measure above; the correlation between unemployment and economic freedom (free trade, free prices) is negative. More freedom, more jobs.

Don and Bryan agreed that "while there aren’t many upsides to being a low-skilled worker, one upside is that your skills aren’t highly specialized – and, so, you are quite flexible in moving..." between jobs. This makes it unlikely even for low-skilled workers - absent a minimum wage - to spend long periods of time unemployed.

I shall, as a burgeoning econ buff, explore the questions raised by Don Bellante's forebear Joan Robinson re monopsony power and marginal economic exploitation another day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...

RIP Macroeconomics

This post has no intellectual rigour, but I'm posting it anyway, because neither does macroeconomics. Most economists love spending all day doing macro, preferring it to the prosaic small-scale world of microeconomics. This is where the brazen hypocrisy of many heterodox folks will make itself known, as they decry the fallacies of composition rife within neoclassical economics and then go away and commit the same daft mistakes themselves (sometimes quite well disguised) using aggregates of demand, supply, and labour time. Further friction for modern economists can be had when contending with the tripartite division of economics into land, labour, capital, and the action of classes (the 'class' praxis) of the owners of those three economic resources. So, to all of macroecon... you're drunk. Go home and rethink your life.* * Yes I know I just committed a fallacy of reification.

Foreign Policy hates you...

In Foreign Policy a hardcore fluff piece * talks about young Americans falling out of love with capitalism. The closing paragraph is very artful but also insipid and inaccurate. Read it and weep! ~~~ * A fluff piece that does a very bad job of grappling with a subject that is actually important.