Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

economicsfromthetopdown.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#31

Post by Eumenes »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #24
imtringued wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you can prove the existence of voluntary exchange in the real world. Also neoclassical economics tends to get marginal cost structures completely wrong. When you ask them, companies report constant or falling marginal cost. The text book authors that do the study then proceed to teach their students that marginal cost must rise. I am not sure I should trust people like that. If they are willing to st…

You had me for 2 paragraphs. But claiming that a branch of economics is trying to implement communism but somehow hide in plain sight, is a real stretch. Like a giant leap over the grand canyon stretch. Is there anything to this argument? I really would like to know. I read a recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism, as a way for the rich to quell dissent in the poor. But not sure…

The federal reserve is hiding in 'plain sight' ... You could argue that a monopoly of large commercial banks regulated by a federal centralized government fixes the market to a degree.

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#32

Post by NoboruWataya »

notahacker wrote: post #3

Not convinced that an article which mentions religion more times than it mentions risk and doesn't mention growth expectations at all tells us very much...

Or resource allocation.

But then, these navel-gazing critiques of capitalism only work in a vacuum. Why do these men in suits assemble in these temples of finance to perform these arcane rituals, to utter these numerical incantations? It's weird, right? They must be searching for god, or maybe they never got enough love growing up. Couldn't have anything to do with actual human experience telling us that the market is the most resilient and efficient (if not always the most fair) way of deciding, as a society, how to employ our scarce resources in a useful way. The people who buy and sell abstract claims on collective human endeavours must do so out of some deep-rooted spiritual malaise and it can't be related in any way to their own very mundane desire to put food on the table and maybe even spend a couple of weeks a year in a tropical location with people they love.

No, we should probably get rid of all this weird ideological baggage. (What do we replace it with? Oh, that's not my department...)

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#34

Post by notahacker »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #26
notahacker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm entirely getting the intended point of the essay, I just think that missing the 101 stuff makes the point that the author doesn't understand the subject matter he's attempting to do a hatchet job on.

Think it is because he is saying the 101 stuff is bunk, so why try to use the bunk to disprove the bunk. Like if a physicist is trying to convince a true religious believer there isn't a god, doing it by quoting the bible is often not very effective.

The way to convince people the 101 stuff is bunk is to refer to the 101 stuff correctly, and explain why it doesn't work (or alternatively, come up with a better model), not to try to explain how some of it, fail to acknowledge other parts and imply there are gaps in it.

Quoting the Bible is one of the more common methods of arguing against it or beliefs [purportedly] based on it, and certainly a better way of arguing against the coherence of the Christian model of salvation than writing an article about "the ritual of salvation" that makes a lot of disparaging comparisons to sun gods and talks a lot about Abraham but seems unaware that the Christian model of salvation actually revolves around Jesus

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#35

Post by FrustratedMonky »

Eumenes wrote: post #31
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me for 2 paragraphs. But claiming that a branch of economics is trying to implement communism but somehow hide in plain sight, is a real stretch. Like a giant leap over the grand canyon stretch. Is there anything to this argument? I really would like to know. I read a recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism, as a way for the rich to quell dissent in the poor. But not sure…

The federal reserve is hiding in 'plain sight' ... You could argue that a monopoly of large commercial banks regulated by a federal centralized government fixes the market to a degree.

Still. It is still a pretty huge leap that because the Fed is a central bank, that we are really communists.

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#36

Post by FrustratedMonky »

Eumenes wrote: post #31
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me for 2 paragraphs. But claiming that a branch of economics is trying to implement communism but somehow hide in plain sight, is a real stretch. Like a giant leap over the grand canyon stretch. Is there anything to this argument? I really would like to know. I read a recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism, as a way for the rich to quell dissent in the poor. But not sure…

The federal reserve is hiding in 'plain sight' ... You could argue that a monopoly of large commercial banks regulated by a federal centralized government fixes the market to a degree.

I really just want imtringued to explain a few more links in the chain of reasoning. It sounds like something I heard recently that we'll have a veneer of socialism, to hide the fact that the rich are in control (central bank, monopolies). Just not sure I'm reading into this post correctly.

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#37

Post by FrustratedMonky »

notahacker wrote: post #34
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think it is because he is saying the 101 stuff is bunk, so why try to use the bunk to disprove the bunk. Like if a physicist is trying to convince a true religious believer there isn't a god, doing it by quoting the bible is often not very effective.

The way to convince people the 101 stuff is bunk is to refer to the 101 stuff correctly, and explain why it doesn't work (or alternatively, come up with a better model), not to try to explain how some of it , fail to acknowledge other parts and imply there are gaps in it. Quoting the Bible is one of the more common methods of arguing against it or beliefs [purportedly] based on it, and certainly a better way of argui…

You are correct, I posted to fast. I retract post.

I do often think the best way to convince people to not be Christian is to have them read the Bible. Most Christians have no idea what they believe in, and don't know what is in the Bible (like in US where they think Jesus was pro-Gun, kill thy neighbor). Just reading the Bible is enough to convince people to not be Christian.

So, if I take this reasoning back to Economics. Maybe people do have a lot of false beliefs about Economics, and if they would study it, they would realize it is bunk, and turn away from it?

[EDIT POST] Changing bit more. Because it really is where the person is at in their learning. There are plenty of Christians that want to persecute Trans Kids, and reading the Bible is not going to convince them they shouldn't (even though Jesus). But maybe when they learn more about Jesus they will stop wanting to kill people.

It is about the learning. If you indoctrinate kids into a cult at Bible School, how are they supposed to know it is wrong? They a fresh young minds to be imprinted.

Same with Econ 101. Freshman, just starting out, they are learning. They are not already experts, so going to study Economics and immediately see through it all as bunk.

So guess you need some expertise in the bunk, to refute the bunk. But that all takes a lot of energy.

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#38

Post by m0llusk »

This is confusing. At one point risk is an essential component of ritualized calculations, but then the same formulas enable ignoring climate change? Also seems wrong at the core as what we know of economics shows symbols and counting used to track commodities and the regular production and trade of commodities then leading to lending and futures and so on which indicates that however abstract and ritualized everything emerges from and continues to be based on humans meeting their essential and perceived needs.

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#39

Post by FrustratedMonky »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #30
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #27

I wish there were more books or studies on how Economics is really a form of Psychology. It seems like the economic theories that delve into why humans do what they do seem more 'real', or uncovering something about human nature that can be applied.

Isn't that just behavioural economics?

Yes, you are correct. Just doesn't seem to get much respect, or its findings integrated into wider Economic Theory. Or maybe it just takes time.

Re: The Ritual of Capitalization (2021)

#40

Post by uxp100 »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #24
imtringued wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you can prove the existence of voluntary exchange in the real world. Also neoclassical economics tends to get marginal cost structures completely wrong. When you ask them, companies report constant or falling marginal cost. The text book authors that do the study then proceed to teach their students that marginal cost must rise. I am not sure I should trust people like that. If they are willing to st…

You had me for 2 paragraphs. But claiming that a branch of economics is trying to implement communism but somehow hide in plain sight, is a real stretch. Like a giant leap over the grand canyon stretch. Is there anything to this argument? I really would like to know. I read a recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism, as a way for the rich to quell dissent in the poor. But not sure…

> recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism

I think this is a quite old theory, and well, who knows on the scale of history, but I am pretty skeptical about it over the last 50 years.

Post reply on HN