|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 25, 2013 14:03:17 GMT
I'm not sure how you got 'blowing bubbles over fake feminists' from the IEA article, but the the CBI and the IOD are also against quotas. Are you? I'd prefer it if you didn't deliberately misquote. The point was simple: the paper is making a false distinction, ignoring that it is indeed neoclassical economics that provides a justification for quotas. Am I in favour of quotas? I'm certainly in favour of positive discrimination methods. They have been proven to reduce inefficient discrimination. Leaving it to the market, given the first best is not delivered through the profit motive, is simply irrational |
|
|
|
Post by tamora on Aug 25, 2013 16:05:42 GMT
I'm not sure how you got 'blowing bubbles over fake feminists' from the IEA article, but the the CBI and the IOD are also against quotas. Are you? I'd prefer it if you didn't deliberately misquote. The point was simple: the paper is making a false distinction, ignoring that it is indeed neoclassical economics that provides a justification for quotas. Am I in favour of quotas? I'm certainly in favour of positive discrimination methods. They have been proven to reduce inefficient discrimination. Leaving it to the market, given the first best is not delivered through the profit motive, is simply irrational I didn't deliberately misquote at all. I thought I'd got the gist of the part I wanted you to explain. However, you said, ".... blowing bubbles over some fake feminists and classical liberal distinction." I still don't know how you got this from the IEA article. Neoclassical economics rules out discrimination on the grounds of race, gender. Quotas demand discrimination.
And "positive discrimination methods" are what in practical terms?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 25, 2013 17:28:21 GMT
I didn't deliberately misquote at all. I thought I'd got the gist of the part I wanted you to explain. However, you said, ".... blowing bubbles over some fake feminists and classical liberal distinction."There you go! You've managed to quote correctly. Well done! Completely wrong! Neoclassical economics, through its understanding of efficient labour markets, provides the means to show the 'first best' of no discrimination. When that isn't available (and it clearly isn't as discrimination continues to occur), the analysis shifts to the 'second best'. Here, adding discriminatory behaviour can be pareto improving. And that is what we have here: positive discrimination in order to reduce the negative effects of discrimination Its more general than quotas. The point is that passive policies, such as equal pay legislation, aren't able to reduce the wage and employment inequities. |
|
|
|
Post by tamora on Aug 25, 2013 18:06:55 GMT
I didn't deliberately misquote at all. I thought I'd got the gist of the part I wanted you to explain. However, you said, ".... blowing bubbles over some fake feminists and classical liberal distinction."There you go! You've managed to quote correctly. Well done! Completely wrong! Neoclassical economics, through its understanding of efficient labour markets, provides the means to show the 'first best' of no discrimination. When that isn't available (and it clearly isn't as discrimination continues to occur), the analysis shifts to the 'second best'. Here, adding discriminatory behaviour can be pareto improving. And that is what we have here: positive discrimination in order to reduce the negative effects of discrimination Its more general than quotas. The point is that passive policies, such as equal pay legislation, aren't able to reduce the wage and employment inequities. OK, now you've scored your silly little point, how did you get the comment, ".... blowing bubbles over some fake feminists and classical liberal distinction" from the IEA article? Please make sure your answer actually relates specifically to your comment and the article. And apologies if this is too low brow for you ... just who d'you think is best placed to decide who should sit on a company's board? The company itself or politicians? How do you know discrimination occurs? How do you know companies aren't using their judgement and knowledge of their businesses to choose the best candidates? And "positive discrimination methods" are what in practical terms? The Institute of Economic Affairs Director, Mark Littlewood, says ... “Proposals to force companies to increase the number of women on boards are extremely ill-advised. Imposing a mandatory quota would be yet another irritant to UK firms. Burdensome overregulation of this kind is not a driver of economic growth.
“Companies themselves are best placed to decide the best commercial make up their board, and Government should have no part to play in these decisions."
Littlewood cannot be described as low brow. He has a PPE from Oxford! |
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 25, 2013 18:21:51 GMT
OK, now you've scored your silly little point My advice? Don't deliberately misquote. Why are you demanding repetition? I've already mentioned the problem: its a piece of tabloidism as it deliberately hides from the nature of economic analysis into discrimination. There is no "feminism versus classical liberalism" simplicity. The main argument in favour of positive discrimination, as I've already said, is orthodox and merely a reference to the theory of the second best (although, if you bung in concepts such as the 'law of large numbers', you can also refer in more detail to productivity enhancement). The continued existence of discrimination certainly shows that the company's board isn't up to the job. The debate is over the source. The Chicago School, for example, reduces it to a 'taste for discrimination'. Simply put, board members are misogynists. Compare that to the institutionalist approach and the idea of organisational adaptation. Here, firms are simply forced to replicate the discriminatory practices that exist in general society. Note of course that both discrimination stances essentially provide a support for the use of positive discrimination. For the Chicago School, market power is the problem. For institutionalism, its the profit motive. By restricting choice, the board members are forced to act closer to the 'first best'. Its empirically tested all the time. Its not particularly difficult; see, for example, the Oaxaca-Ransom decomposition approach. Tin-pot right wing institute tuts over regulations? Golly gosh! |
|
|
|
Post by tamora on Aug 27, 2013 12:00:19 GMT
OK, now you've scored your silly little point My advice? Don't deliberately misquote. Why are you demanding repetition? I've already mentioned the problem: its a piece of tabloidism as it deliberately hides from the nature of economic analysis into discrimination. There is no "feminism versus classical liberalism" simplicity. The main argument in favour of positive discrimination, as I've already said, is orthodox and merely a reference to the theory of the second best (although, if you bung in concepts such as the 'law of large numbers', you can also refer in more detail to productivity enhancement). The continued existence of discrimination certainly shows that the company's board isn't up to the job. The debate is over the source. The Chicago School, for example, reduces it to a 'taste for discrimination'. Simply put, board members are misogynists. Compare that to the institutionalist approach and the idea of organisational adaptation. Here, firms are simply forced to replicate the discriminatory practices that exist in general society. Note of course that both discrimination stances essentially provide a support for the use of positive discrimination. For the Chicago School, market power is the problem. For institutionalism, its the profit motive. By restricting choice, the board members are forced to act closer to the 'first best'. Its empirically tested all the time. Its not particularly difficult; see, for example, the Oaxaca-Ransom decomposition approach. Tin-pot right wing institute tuts over regulations? Golly gosh! I'm not buying the tin pot socialist argument. Nor will I debate with someone who evades questions and arrogantly supposes he can read my mind, unless of course you can predict share prices too. No? I thought not. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 27, 2013 13:49:11 GMT
I'm not buying the tin pot socialist argument. No socialist argument has been made. You must be replying to the wrong thread. There hasn't been a debate. You've simply referred to a tabloid source that failed to refer to the schools of thought in the study of discrimination. When informed of that failure you've then rambled on about socialism. Being a cheery sort, I've assumed that ramble was merely a little mistake. Then again, perhaps you do indeed think the Chicago School is socialist? |
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Sept 21, 2013 0:35:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Sept 21, 2013 11:48:10 GMT
Aren't the Black Party weirdoes trying to abolish the Senedd? The anti-national Front, I call them.
|
|
