[WS:] I know what the standard neoclassical argument is. I just think that this argument is on par with one claiming that natural disasters are god's punishment for our sin. It is not enough to say that there is not a shed of empirical evidence to support this rubbish - actually this "argument" is poisonous to any critical thought aiming to examine things as they are as opposed uncritical babbling mantras how they ought to be. This was the point of my posting - the same "reasoning" applied to everyday life activities immediately appears as obvious bullshit. I understand why priests of capital perpetuate that crap, but the general public?
Wojtek
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2011 7:53 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>> Which leads me to a naive question that will probably make economists cringe:
>>>
>>> What is the purpose of restricting public spending other than to
>>> protect the profitability of private investments?
>>>
>>
>> Lower the wage level by enlarging the industrial reserve army, thereby disciplining labor.
>
> The standard neoclassical/business apologist argument would be that government wastes money and that the competitive allocation of capital in the private economy will produce higher employment and higher income over the long term. I don't believe this, and I'm sure few listmembers do, but the official claim is hardly obscure. The bourgeois answer to Carrol's claim would be that keeping the wage artificially high causes unemployment - that it's an "insider" strategy by the already employed to freeze out the unemployed.
>
> If you're going to refute bourgeois arguments, you should at least know what they are.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>