From: video61atarisales@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:47:13 PM UTC-5, davidp wrote:   
   > QUORA: WHY DO LEFTISTS DISREGARD ECONOMICS?    
   > ---answered by Aaron Brown, Former Risk Manager at AQR Capital Management   
   (2007–2017), Updated Aug. 22    
   >    
   > A more accurate formulation is people on the left often have less respect   
   for microeconomics than people on the right.    
   >    
   > Microeconomics studies behavior of individuals responding to incentives. It   
   includes things like the law of supply and demand and utility theory. It often   
   argues that leaving individuals alone leads to the best outcome for everyone.    
   >    
   > Many people on the left prefer macroeconomic arguments. Macro takes a larger   
   view of the economy as a whole and includes topics like monetary theory and   
   supply-side/demand-side analysis. It often argues that regulation and   
   government intervention can    
   improve outcomes.    
   >    
   > For example, many conservatives argue from microeconomic principles that a   
   higher minimum wage increases the cost of low-skill labor, and therefore will   
   lead to less demand for low-skill labor, meaning many workers will lose their   
   jobs. Many leftists    
   argue that macroeconomic considerations will overwhelm the microeconomic   
   forces and lead to more jobs for low-skill workers to go along with higher   
   pay.    
   >    
   > Right wingers may argue that letting people make private arrangements, with   
   the government limited to subsidizing care for people who cannot afford it,   
   leads to the greatest efficiency, innovation and customer service. On the   
   left, people are more    
   inclined to claim the government can collect all the money people spend on   
   healthcare and administer it to deliver better healthcare for everyone than   
   they would get on their own.    
   >    
   > There are three big reasons the left often prefers macroeconomics to   
   microeconomics. The first is that the left is often suspicious of treating   
   people as rational individuals making decisions in a social vacuum. They’re   
   inclined to think of social    
   forces affecting everything. Rather than thinking of minimum wage laws   
   affecting negotiations between an individual employer and employee, they think   
   of it as part of the struggle between Capital and Labor; healthcare decisions   
   are not between patient    
   and doctor, but between Big Business and Small Individuals, who also may be   
   sick.    
   >    
   > Second, microeconomics has a much smaller role for government. It is hard to   
   justify grand left wing plans if people are running things well without   
   central planning or extensive regulation.    
   >    
   > Finally, microeconomics has much less wiggle room than macroeconomics. In   
   microeconomics, people respond in predictable ways to incentives. Claims are   
   pretty easy to test. Macroeconomics allows much more controversy. It’s hard   
   to find economists who    
   will disagree with microeconomic conclusions like, “if you tax something,   
   you get less of it.” It’s easy to find economists with opposite opinions   
   on most macroeconomic questions, like whether the level of deficit spending in   
   the US is good or bad    
   for the economy.    
   >    
   > If you want to make big changes in society, it’s hard to justify them by   
   microeconomics, but easy to find macroeconomic arguments to support them.   
      
   quack economics, that is free trade economics, have no real understanding how   
   things really work.   
      
   adam smith, karl marx, keynes and other giants of left wing economics, fully   
   understood what debt is, and how it works. tiny little midgets of free trade   
   economics, don't even include, nor recognize debt in their crank models.   
      
   no real lefty ignores debt.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)