> Economists are in favor of carbon taxes because the alternative is environmental regulation.
Regulation is inefficient, markets could be more efficient if they were markets with supply, demand and competition (which is clearly not the case in the emission markets at least not where I live)
> They favor open immigration policies because it brings flexibility to the job market. Leading to less job security for low skill workers and more profits for multinational companies.
This only happens if you start with an imbalanced market to begin with. If there is competition between the multinationals, then they are forced to decrease prices.
In other words, lower salaries result in lower prices which in turn benefit everybody, including and especially those low skilled workers that keep their job.
One way to make everybody richer is to decrease prices but this is basically overseen today and called the "deflation monster" even though it's a natural process due to tech advances.
> Economists are not intentionally supporting multinationals interests over people's interests. They do so as a side effect of their belief in the correctness and practical relevance of microeconomics and neo-classical theories.
Yes and these theories are IMO very misled and make no sense at all. Take even Krugman (the one I'm most familiar with) - he favors printing money to resolve an economic crisis caused by printing money. If that were the solution, we could all be rich by just printing our money and living happy ever after. See the problem?
Most economists today don't know what a market is and why it's superior, otherwise they wouldn't be in favor of a central bank. A Central bank basically practices price fixing for the market of money.
Regulation is inefficient, markets could be more efficient if they were markets with supply, demand and competition (which is clearly not the case in the emission markets at least not where I live)
> They favor open immigration policies because it brings flexibility to the job market. Leading to less job security for low skill workers and more profits for multinational companies.
This only happens if you start with an imbalanced market to begin with. If there is competition between the multinationals, then they are forced to decrease prices.
In other words, lower salaries result in lower prices which in turn benefit everybody, including and especially those low skilled workers that keep their job.
One way to make everybody richer is to decrease prices but this is basically overseen today and called the "deflation monster" even though it's a natural process due to tech advances.
> Economists are not intentionally supporting multinationals interests over people's interests. They do so as a side effect of their belief in the correctness and practical relevance of microeconomics and neo-classical theories.
Yes and these theories are IMO very misled and make no sense at all. Take even Krugman (the one I'm most familiar with) - he favors printing money to resolve an economic crisis caused by printing money. If that were the solution, we could all be rich by just printing our money and living happy ever after. See the problem?
Most economists today don't know what a market is and why it's superior, otherwise they wouldn't be in favor of a central bank. A Central bank basically practices price fixing for the market of money.