Warsocialism | Although even economists admit this is a lie, [7] it is still boilerplate economic theory. Economists MUST lie about this because if people are being manipulated by marketing, then the so-called “free market” obviously requires government intervention.In a Liberal Democracy, tax payers are ultimately responsible for an individual if that individual becomes destitute or a criminal. Economists use the “rational utility maximizer” lie to prevent government intervention in markets when intervention would serve the common good. For example, a rational government would intervene in markets to prevent con artists from peddling their worthless shit to an unsuspecting public. (We have all seen those suckers dumping their last dollar in a slot machine.)
Economists argue that government can not possibly know what an individual “needs”. If people are manipulated by advertisers, flashing lights, and sex symbols, then government has a good reason to intervene in the market for an individual’s welfare because these causalities are dumped on government to care for after the con artists have cleaned them out. For example, a federal law could be passed that would limit legalized gambling to high net worth individuals (it’s now done with options and futures trading).
By having university-trained liars (economists) convince the victims that they alone are responsible for their own actions (instead of a team of best-professionals-money-can-buy who were hired to exploit the public), the rich evade responsibility for their actions. Thus, “the market” repeats the basic motif of American politics and illustrates what makes it so clever: the rich manipulate unsuspecting citizens for fun and profit, deplete common resources, externalize social costs onto the tax payer, and blame the victims themselves or the elected screw-ups and their cronies for social problems. It’s brilliant!!!
1 comments:
very interesting argument .. however, I disagree with the proposal that by using the “rational utility maximizer,” the economist has created a brilliant system.
An economist today is similar to the head of a tribe in the BCE. In ancient Sumer, tribes attacked farmers during harvest time. Though the farmers fought back they were more likely than often outsmarted by the tribes. Their penalty involved a loss of crop. Today, in comparison to Sumer millenniums later, the economist speculates on citizen's resource and demand using options and futures as their system of outsmarting the citizens. And the same way farmers paid the tribes in crop, the citizens pay the economists in cash. The system isn't brilliant, it has always been in place.
Post a Comment