Such pseudo-theories can't be refuted theoretically -- the refutation is ignored and no one but those who refute it know they have. It's clear enough that establishment intellectuals in any field but particularly in economics will believe anything that justifies what is.
They can only be refuted in practice by the action of workers. If _that_ refutation is stong enough, economists will (belatedly and with lots of juggling) more or less rationalize the new actuality. During periods of working-class weakness (or, more accurately, capitalist strength) the myth develops that theory can dictate practice. This is wholly false. One does not change minds in order to change the world. One changes the world in order to change minds. That is what happened both in the 1930s and the 1960s. It _may_ be happening again. Carrol On 5/9/2011 9:36 PM, Sandwichman wrote: > One difficulty of "debunking" is that people are predisposed to certain > kinds of "supply and demand" "cost/benefit" arguments that are themselves > highly ideological. The scientific pretension of these preconceptions was > discredited in the mid-19th century but they've been recuperated through > carefully coded "simplifying assumptions." > > To make a long story short, you're dealing here with the zombie wages-fund > doctrine. That doctrine held -- as a matter of scientific principle, no less > -- that it was impossible to raise wages through combinations of workers or > government legislation. The amount of the wages fund was fixed in the short > run and there was no way to increase the wages of one group of workers > without decreasing the wages of another group or, worse, bankrupting > employers and throwing masses of people out of work. > > The basic assumptions of the doctrine were severely criticized by Marx, but > also by William Thornton, whose critique led to John Stuart Mill's recanting > of the doctrine and, eventually, to the development of neo-classical > economics. > > But then a funny thing happened. The exact OPPOSITE arguments were used by > anti-union propagandists to argue to the exact SAME conclusions as before. > Whereas before a legislated or collectively-bargained wage increase would be > bad for workers because the amount of the wages-fund was fixed, now a > legislated or collectively bargained wage increase would be bad for workers > because the amount of the wages-fund WASN'T fixed. > > One element is absolutely essential to carrying off this rhetorical bait and > switch: isolating the question of wages from the question of hours of work. > As long as employers can keep people believing they "can't make ends meet" > if they work fewer hours they've got a situation where reducing the wages > can increase the labor supply. This is a condition that violates the "laws" > of supply and demand. Actually, though, it demonstrates how ill-defined and > misleading those laws are -- as Thornton pointed out in the 1860s. > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Louis Proyect<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 5/9/11 6:34 PM, Paul Bartlett wrote: >> >>> This study needs a thorough public critique. It would be faster and >>> most credible if we assemble a group of economists to do so. I am >>> overloaded with other projects, but could help and do my part. >>> >>> >>> Living Wage Would Kill Jobs, Cost Billions, Bloomberg Report Claims >>> >>> >>> By Chris Bragg >>> >>> >> Speaking of debunking, are there any articles that take up the rightwing >> claim that the top 3 percent of American taxpayers are responsible for >> 46 percent of all the tax revenue? Not exactly sure of the figures but >> this about right. Is there a way to put this into context? >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
