Moving toward A BETTER SET OF RULES for the global economy. "We want: 1) fair play, 2) sustainable relationships, 3) the ability to solve collective coordination problems, and 4) a larger set of ideals about how we manage our relationship with the natural world." Also, "the need to value unpaid labor and the emerging care economy which is the production, development, and the maintenance of human capabilities."
Western economics needs to learn from native people's historical cultural and economic ideas and methods. Where relationships between humans, and between humans and nature, are primary. I strongly recommend reading "Indigenous Economics: Sustaining Peoples and Their Lands" by Ronald L. Trosper to learn alternative approaches to decision-making, resource allocation, and cooperation.
When evaluating the work of certain feminist economists, one may argue that their focus on gender dynamics sometimes overshadows fundamental economic principles. For instance, they may emphasize social justice and gender equality in ways that can appear to disregard the efficiency and productivity that traditional economic models prioritize. By focusing too heavily on equity at the expense of growth, some critics argue that they risk creating policies that might be economically unsustainable in the long run. Additionally, a common critique is that feminist economists may overstate the role of gender in explaining economic disparities, when other factors such as education, geography, or global trade dynamics could offer more comprehensive explanations. This overemphasis on gender can lead to a narrow perspective, which might limit the broader applicability of their analyses and recommendations. This makes it difficult to fully address economic issues in a holistic manner, weakening the potential impact of their proposed solutions. Lastly, their advocacy for policies such as extensive social welfare programs or mandated wage equality often overlooks the complexities of market forces. In many cases, these interventions could inadvertently lead to inefficiencies or discourage innovation by imposing excessive regulations on businesses. By failing to adequately balance the needs of both equity and economic performance, their work may come across as more ideological than pragmatic, leading to skepticism about the real-world applicability of their ideas.
@@jiraya350 I will begin by stating that feminist economists have a more holistic way of doing economic analysis. Yes, it is true that Feminists argue a lot about “efficiency and growth” but as a criticism these views tend to shift the focus from the marginal impact of policies on women and other minorities. In statement feminine economists tend to establish an economic order mentality, stating that there are external group constraints that must be considered with any shifts in the order of existing situations. Feminist economists argue equity and efficiency in the economy can coexist and not be at logger heads. With that said there are some studies that have unveiled the reality, The greater the equity closer to a gender balance economy would be achieved while proportionally raising economic output. Studies have shown pattern that with a reduction in gender inequality a percentage increase in economic growth is noticeable while also increasing the size of the workforce and the range in which ideas on innovation and productivity would come from. Feminist economists propose that its not only education, location or import/export activities as key indicators to understanding economic disparity what’s more important are their interactions with gender. To put it more simply, a narrow gender bias scenario in hiring practices for instance would create a scenario where people of one gender would dominate the workforce at the cost of being more innovative. A pity that gender is applied such broadly within in a gender neutral model. Lastly, with Regards to policy recommendations, it is quite true that feminist economists do not ignore the workings of the economy but argue that sometimes it is necessary for the state to step in to do something about the economic inequalities. For instance, their support for policies like social welfare programs or wage rest on the fact that those countries with comprehensive social support schemes do have a better living standards and in many cases an ever growing economy. So, in a way, feminist economists intend to contribute to the evolution of the existing economic theory by attempting to add some social perspective to it. This does not say that the classical tenets of growth or efficiency are disregarded; it is an attempt at building a more comprehensive sustainable framework by incorporating the social determinants of the economy, such as gender. Human Score: 99.66%
Perhaps what she means to say is that Marx didn’t give a formal account for the source of labour, and so within a (narrow) Marxist framework, labour is assumed to be a naturally occurring element?
Moving toward A BETTER SET OF RULES for the global economy. "We want: 1) fair play, 2) sustainable relationships, 3) the ability to solve collective coordination problems, and 4) a larger set of ideals about how we manage our relationship with the natural world." Also, "the need to value unpaid labor and the emerging care economy which is the production, development, and the maintenance of human capabilities."
Great!
Western economics needs to learn from native people's historical cultural and economic ideas and methods. Where relationships between humans, and between humans and nature, are primary. I strongly recommend reading "Indigenous Economics: Sustaining Peoples and Their Lands" by Ronald L. Trosper to learn alternative approaches to decision-making, resource allocation, and cooperation.
When evaluating the work of certain feminist economists, one may argue that their focus on gender dynamics sometimes overshadows fundamental economic principles. For instance, they may emphasize social justice and gender equality in ways that can appear to disregard the efficiency and productivity that traditional economic models prioritize. By focusing too heavily on equity at the expense of growth, some critics argue that they risk creating policies that might be economically unsustainable in the long run.
Additionally, a common critique is that feminist economists may overstate the role of gender in explaining economic disparities, when other factors such as education, geography, or global trade dynamics could offer more comprehensive explanations. This overemphasis on gender can lead to a narrow perspective, which might limit the broader applicability of their analyses and recommendations. This makes it difficult to fully address economic issues in a holistic manner, weakening the potential impact of their proposed solutions.
Lastly, their advocacy for policies such as extensive social welfare programs or mandated wage equality often overlooks the complexities of market forces. In many cases, these interventions could inadvertently lead to inefficiencies or discourage innovation by imposing excessive regulations on businesses. By failing to adequately balance the needs of both equity and economic performance, their work may come across as more ideological than pragmatic, leading to skepticism about the real-world applicability of their ideas.
Thanks ChatGPT…
Now, do you have anything to add to the actual content of the video?
@@jiraya350 I will begin by stating that feminist economists have a more holistic way of doing economic analysis. Yes, it is true that Feminists argue a lot about “efficiency and growth” but as a criticism these views tend to shift the focus from the marginal impact of policies on women and other minorities. In statement feminine economists tend to establish an economic order mentality, stating that there are external group constraints that must be considered with any shifts in the order of existing situations.
Feminist economists argue equity and efficiency in the economy can coexist and not be at logger heads. With that said there are some studies that have unveiled the reality, The greater the equity closer to a gender balance economy would be achieved while proportionally raising economic output. Studies have shown pattern that with a reduction in gender inequality a percentage increase in economic growth is noticeable while also increasing the size of the workforce and the range in which ideas on innovation and productivity would come from.
Feminist economists propose that its not only education, location or import/export activities as key indicators to understanding economic disparity what’s more important are their interactions with gender. To put it more simply, a narrow gender bias scenario in hiring practices for instance would create a scenario where people of one gender would dominate the workforce at the cost of being more innovative. A pity that gender is applied such broadly within in a gender neutral model.
Lastly, with Regards to policy recommendations, it is quite true that feminist economists do not ignore the workings of the economy but argue that sometimes it is necessary for the state to step in to do something about the economic inequalities. For instance, their support for policies like social welfare programs or wage rest on the fact that those countries with comprehensive social support schemes do have a better living standards and in many cases an ever growing economy.
So, in a way, feminist economists intend to contribute to the evolution of the existing economic theory by attempting to add some social perspective to it. This does not say that the classical tenets of growth or efficiency are disregarded; it is an attempt at building a more comprehensive sustainable framework by incorporating the social determinants of the economy, such as gender.
Human Score:
99.66%
Sounds good to me.
Oh dear 😞
The way she sits😅
Can u guys talk about other insights instead of inequality. We are getting tired of that😤
No we are not
@@Darkhonor90 and u r suffering from that?
@wangzijie9240 yes. Everyone is to sorry degree. That's kinda the point of nation wide income inequality. It effects all classes
Marx never said labour is granted or a naturally given factor....
May be Marx was just trying to explain the concepts of Ricardo and Adam Smith....
Perhaps what she means to say is that Marx didn’t give a formal account for the source of labour, and so within a (narrow) Marxist framework, labour is assumed to be a naturally occurring element?
Why don't western economists understand Marx well enough?
Is there something to lose for them also,, if they try to understand Marx better?