Eleven (11) Most Hated American Companies

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can’t let this go. Sorry.

You believe that large multi-national banks in the United States are or have in the last century competed in a “free market?” Do I need to list all of the corporate welfare these banks have enjoyed long since before the repeal of Glass-Steagal?

Ridiculous.

 

[Dimitri]

(Don’t be fooled; “good corporate citizenship” is public relations and Human Resources is a litigation avoidance department).

Never, not even for a second believed otherwise. Although you are the first person I've stumbled on to state this publicly.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No. I don’t think they’ve ever competed in a free market. I think a free market has never existed, and if it did, without controls, would slide into monopoly and oligarchy very rapidly. But I absolutely KNOW it was better under Glass-Steagal. There was more than one factor driving the housing bubble, but anyone who thinks any of it held a candle to the cross-pollination of investment banks, brokerage, mortgage companies and retail banking that was created by the repeal of Glass-Steagall is being hopelessly naive.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Monopolies are much more commonly found in industries infested by government intervention. In the few industries where this isn’t the case, the monopolists are universally favored by the consumer because they provide an outstanding product or service.

Almost. Government intervention is much more commonly found in industries that tend toward or require monopoly. In this case, the order of the chicken and the egg is clear and critical.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sorry, didn't read past the first post. No ATT? Bullschiit.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Monopolies are much more commonly found in industries infested by government intervention. In the few industries where this isn’t the case, the monopolists are universally favored by the consumer because they provide an outstanding product or service.

My argument is a scientific one; if you regard history of thought as a science.

 

[dallasjustice]

My argument is a scientific one; if you regard history of thought as a science.

I don’t regard history or economics as a science. I believe economics is a branch of philosophy.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I don’t regard history or economics as a science. I believe economics is a branch of philosophy.

Fair enough.

However, clarity of thought is easier to find in books and articles than in internet comments. Even if «clarity of thought» relates to interpretation of history.

The monopoly thing is really an intriguing part of economics history; the argument is more a complex one than a complicated one.

See chapter 6 from page 204 in this book:

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/...ieter Plehwe - The Road from Mont Pelerin.pdf

 

[dallasjustice]

Fair enough.

However, clarity of thought is easier to find in books and articles than in internet comments. Even if «clarity of thought» relates to interpretation of history.

The monopoly thing is really an intriguing part of economics history; the argument is more a complex one than a complicated one.

See chapter 6 from page 204 in this book:

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-6-the-making-of-neoliberalism/Philip Mirowski - Dieter Plehwe - The Road from Mont Pelerin.pdf

Thanks. I skimmed through chapter 6. In terms of economics, I’d say I’m far away from Ricardo/Marx and very close to the Austrians. I’m familiar with the MPS. I don’t think the Austrian school has been reformed or died. It’s still very strong. I believe the Ricardo theorists have been totally discredited. I personally hope that Keynesianism is in its final chapter. It should soon be discredited.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Thanks. I skimmed through chapter 6. In terms of economics, I’d say I’m far away from Ricardo/Marx and very close to the Austrians. I’m familiar with the MPS. I don’t think the Austrian school has been reformed or died. It’s still very strong. I believe the Ricardo theorists have been totally discredited. I personally hope that Keynesianism is in its final chapter. It should soon be discredited.

The Austrians are dead. Never got past UK on their way to America.

Read this for a great summary of early neoliberal thought 1920-1947:

http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/48324/Innset_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

[dallasjustice]

The Austrians are dead. Never got past UK on their way to America.

Read this for a great summary of early neoliberal thought 1920-1947:

http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/48324/Innset_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

So we should ignore an approach to economics because it primarily came from wealthy white men?

I believe in judging ideas based on the merits of the idea, not the purported backgrounds/motivations of the individuals espousing them.

You’ve obviously never been to Auburn, Alabama. There are many young Austrian economists and economic historians these days. We even had a Presidential candidate in 2012 who spent a great deal of time explaining Austrian Economics in campaign speeches to his supporters. He finished 2nd in primary delegates and raised more than $40,000,000.

I currently listen to 2 podcasts dedicated to Austrian economics and economic history! The modern day Austrians can be traced directly back to Menger and Misses.

It is true that their ideas are not well accepted in academic circles. That’s not surprising to me since economics and politics aren’t easily separated. For the most part, academic institutions in the U.S. represent a very narrow political spectrum. They are intolerant to political diversity.

 

[Dismayed]

I don’t regard history or economics as a science. I believe economics is a branch of philosophy.

Economics is political philosophy wrapped in equations. It sure as hell isn’t science!

 

[dallasjustice]

Economics is political philosophy wrapped in equations. It sure as hell isn’t science!

I don’t mean to place a judgment on economics because it’s not a science. IMO, there is nothing more important than philosophy. It permeates everything.

It’s the Ricardians who attempt to give economics a scientistic quality with boring math.

 

[Dismayed]

Thanks. I skimmed through chapter 6. In terms of economics, I’d say I’m far away from Ricardo/Marx and very close to the Austrians. I’m familiar with the MPS. I don’t think the Austrian school has been reformed or died. It’s still very strong. I believe the Ricardo theorists have been totally discredited. I personally hope that Keynesianism is in its final chapter. It should soon be discredited.

What people call Keynesianism is actually the Hicks bastardization of Keynes.

 

[Dismayed]

I don’t mean to place a judgment on economics because it’s not a science. IMO, there is nothing more important than philosophy. It permeates everything.

It’s the Ricardians who attempt to give economics a scientistic quality with boring math.

It's fair to decide if something is useful, or not. Neo-liberal economics is a colossal failure on the usefulness scale.

 

[Brad]

Economics has also been called the dismal science.
It's certainly a very poorly conducted experiment (on unwitting subjects)

 

[Wombat]

It converts the common-wealth into wealth for the powerful.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I don’t regard history or economics as a science. I believe economics is a branch of philosophy.

Consider this: What you and I think about the status of economis as science is irrelevant. The relevant in a society is what people think. See my point?

The economics price, established 50 years ago, and given to Austrian von Hayek in the first years of the prize, is called «The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences».

So there we have it. Economics IS science in common language. And the other Nobel prizes (physics, medicine etc.) do NOT object to the economics prize. So I guess they too think economics qualifies as science.

Please note that I am not arguing that economics is science; I am trying to elaborate on economics’ status in modern day and society.

 

[Brad]

There have been many non-economists (mathematician, psychologists...) awarded the Swedish bank prize though

 

[dallasjustice]

I am trying to elaborate on economics’ status in modern day and society.

I agree that economists are ascribed far too much legitimacy over their claims and predictions. There are other real sciences that aren’t eligible for the Nobel prize.