The sophistry of feminist economics

My experience of women is that a lot of them naturally use the techniques of sophistry in their arguments with men.  A recent column on feminist economics in The Economist is a good example of this applied to economics. The column mentions the number of women teaching economics, the pay gap and mostly the unpaid work done by women.

The first thing to say in a criticism of feminism is that if your can make a person feel guilty then it is a lot easier to control them.  On this count the feminists have been very successful.  Us guys are supposed to feel guilty about our personalities, our relationships and our sexuality. Some feminists would have us believe that everything we do is to put down and control women.  Some feminists have DBS degrees. (The D stands for doctor.)  If you repeat an untruth often enough some people will come to believe it.

Most of the complaints relate to injustice of which there is a lot in this world.  The truth is that men inflict injustice upon both women and other men and women inflict injustice upon both men and other women.  We would be a lot better off fighting injustice wherever it is rather than having a competition to see who has experience the worst injustice.  The sophistry comes from focusing on a very narrow injustice and ignoring the rest.  We will not be able to deal with injustice or violence against women unless we also deal with injustice and violence against men

The column points out In 2014 only 12% of American economics professors were female, and only one woman (Elinor Ostrom) has won the Nobel prize for economics. This could be because male economists discourage women from studying the field or it could be because women are generally smarter than men and stay away from a field which is based largely on misconceptions and false motivators.  Maybe women are more reluctant to sell their souls to the almighty dollar.

The same may also be true for the pay gap.  A lot of women do not want the stress that goes with higher paying jobs.  It is a lot less stressful to encourage men to take these jobs and a lot of women put their partners under pressure.  Probably rates of pay are more a function of supply and demand for workers rather than a conspiracy of men to keep women from equal pay.

The issue of unpaid work is another case of a very narrow focus in order to promote the false premise that women are cheated because they do not get paid for the housework and child rearing that they do.  We are now talking about relationships and the fundamental of good relationships is that there must be a more or less equal two-way exchange. I believe this even though I have been accused of being selfish for saying it.  In a lot of traditional economic and marriage partnerships all or most labor was unpaid. In our industrial society some work is paid and some is unpaid. As technology has reduced the household work of the partnership and as standards of living have tightened, more women are working outside the house for pay.

Sometimes historical marriage relationships have involved a division of labour and in some cases the division of labour has been essential for survival.  This may be less so now and the division of labour should be for each couple to work out without the interference of feminists.  The important thing is that for the relationship to be satisfactory  the exchange needs to be more or less equal.  These days couples are not so dependent for survival on a relationship with a member of the opposite sex and any woman (or man) who feels cheated can easily break up.  With house work some women do it to themselves in that they decide what work should be done and how often.  It may be that asking men to help is really an attempt to power trip.

One of my concerns about feminism is that it does not encourage good relationships.  How can you hope for a good relationship when one partner is using sophistry to  make the other feel guilty so you can control him?

One of the greatest injustices against women in our society is that so many end up as lonely old ladies. It may be  this would be eased if women were to focus on building good relationships.  Statistically people in good relationships live longer than others.

Answering concerns about an income scheme

A discussion forum on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation website brought out a number of concerns about proposals for a basic income scheme. There were more than 2,000 comments.  Here are answers to some of the concerns.

How do we pay for a basic income scheme?

There are two answers to this question.  The first is that it would replace a range of existing social welfare payments and would make these payments with more efficiency.  Employing fewer people this would increase the need.  Also I believe subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers so this would release a lot more money for an income scheme.

For the second answer we have to focus on the agricultural surplus, the excess production by each agricultural worker which allows food for people to do other things. Without the agricultural surplus we would not have civilization as we know it.

Until now the agricultural surplus has been distributed via employment but the current level of technology is making this more difficult.  Thus the interest in a universal basic income scheme.  We should note that the agricultural surplus is based largely on petroleum and could be somewhat precarious.

As most of the technology that has gone into the agricultural surplus has been developed over the last 2,000 years and most if not all of us have ancestors who worked on that, we should consider it a part of our inheritance. We are all entitled to a share.  We should have a collective responsibility to ensure everyone has the opportunity for the same standard of living as most other people.  The amount of payments should depend upon the population and the quantity of goods and services we are able to produce.  If this ratio goes up then the payments should go up and if this ratio goes down then the payments will have to go down.

I believe there are some serious problems with the way in which our economy creates money.  As an income scheme involves money this would be a good time to deal with that problem.

How do we stop people from smoking dope all day?

The simple answer to this question is that we do not. We do not need everyone to work all the time to maintain the agricultural surplus.    We no longer need a work ethic.

A basic income scheme would be a tremendous transfer of decision-making power to individuals (from governments and from bankers who create money via the fractional reserve banking system) and we have to allow people to make their own decisions and to take or benefit from the consequences.  The agricultural surplus should give us all the right to decide what to do with our time.

An income scheme would be communist.

This blogger dislikes the isms because they tend to be mostly meaningless.  As I understand communism it involves treating people humanely and government control of the economy.  It seems to appeal to people who wants to tell others how to live their lives.    I believe we should try to treat people humanely and I do not want others telling me how to live my life. As decision making power goes with money an income scheme would be a transfer of power to individuals.  It is difficult to think many communists would want that.

A guaranteed basic income scheme would help with a lot of social and economic problems but such major changes would go against a lot of vested interests.  Even people who would benefit the most are likely to fear the unknown.  Therefore concerns need to be taken seriously.

This blogger has just published an eBook Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy which discusses a lot of these issues. The price is only 99 cents.  I encourage you to have a look at it. Until April 19, 2016 you can get a free copy from Smashwords.  Use the link and code at the top of this weblog.

Some concerns about the Swiss money creation referendum

The Swiss are going to hold a referendum on a proposal to change the way in which money is created by transferring this function from private banks to the central bank.  The more I think about this the more I see it as an attack on banks by people who do not really understand what money is and how the financial system functions, or should I say by people whose understanding of money is different from mine.

I believe there are some serious problems with the current fractional reserve way of creating money and anything which might lead to reform is to be encouraged.  However, I would like to see some debate rather than letting those who would tell the rest of us how to live win by default.  I want to see a libertarian reform in which decision-making is by all individuals rather than a select few.

Here are two links to information about the referendum. One, two.

Money is a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services and is backed by the agricultural surplus of which we have a huge amount although its continuation is somewhat precarious.  The fractional reserve way of creating money gives great power to bankers who create money each time they make a loan.  The Swiss critics are right about that. Money represents purchasing power for people who hold it and those who create money can decide to whom they will transfer that purchasing power. Transferring the money creation function to the central banks would be transferring power from one small group to another. I am not certain bureaucrats would be any better at making decisions in the public interest than private bankers.

A more libertarian approach would be to combine monetary reform with a universal income scheme and to call money agricultural surplus credits.  This is explained in my just released ebook Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy.  The book also talks about the problems with fractional reserve banking. (You may get a free copy of this book from Smashwords until March 19, 2016. See previous post.)

In reforming the way in which we create money two other factors need to be considered.  The total amount of money available needs to be flexible up and down as the quantity of good and services exchanged varies. If it is not flexible we should expect inflation or deflation, both of which rob people of their savings.  The Swiss proposal says the central bank would use its statistics facilities to help in this.

The other concern is interest.  I believe the charging of interest on loans is a Ponzi scheme which leads to periodic financial crises.  This too is in the book. I did not see anything in the proposal to indicate how interest would be handled.  It could be the people who crafted the proposal do not see that interest is a problem in money creation.

I fear that not too many people truly understand how money works in the economy and how the fractional reserve way of creating money is a serious problem.  Reforms are needed although I can not see that transferring money creation from one small group to another small group will be a satisfactory reform.

Free Funny Money

Here is a free promotional giveaway of the new ebook Funny Money: Adapting to a down economy.  This book is now available on Amazon Kindle and Smashwords.  The next step is for me to make some formatting corrections so Smashwords can distribute it to a number of book stores.


Smashwords allows authors to create coupons for discounts and free giveaways.  I have made a coupon to give this book away free for about two weeks. The code is HS63E and it expires on March 19, 2016

The book is available at:

The book is also available at the Kindle book store at*Version*=1&*entries*=0  

at the regular price of 99 cents. So far as I know Amazon does not allow the free giveaway for the publishing option I have chosen.

This book is critical of some aspects of economics and endorses others. The author, who has also read history and anthropology, questions economic growth and the fractional reserve way of creating money. He has come to terms with the market economic model as a set of guidelines for economic policy. The current economic crisis is resource based in that we have used up the most easily accessible of energy and mineral resouces.  We need a guaranteed income scheme and a new way of creating money.

%d bloggers like this: