me neither .... I just didn't honestly get the pic lol ....... But that's me , just ignore me lol
Neoliberal Economics is DEAD
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
lol its off now , he backed out lol
but iv change the thread title so im doing a topped sog technique with a single clone just for fun really and interest lol ...... My strategy was low light wattage and one or two colas .... I went with two so im just continueing with it ..... The links in my sig
daedalux
Well-Known Member
Did he really quit?
yep
daedalux
Well-Known Member
bummer...
daedalux
Well-Known Member
You guys should agree on conditions n both drop seeds at the same time.
read thread buddy and you'll understand
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Just stop, man.. Take a second to think about what you're doing.. Berating a guy for admitting a mistake. Admitting a mistake is courageous, especially in light of criticism. You should be honoring that.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
In the article, the Dalai Lama called himself an economic Marxist. As far back as grade school, I remember being told that Marxism= Communism= unpatriotic= Unamerican.
Yet as I grew up,I realised that just about everything this country calls an advance in social justice is in direct contravention of capitalist oligarchic principles... and that I've recently come to the idea that if that's so, why the Fuck do we as a nation still exalt the self destructive madness of capitalist oligarchy, let alone tolerate it?
'To whom much is given, much is expected.' We've all heard that saying at one point or another... but where in the current scheme of economic thinking has it been reflected? I only see the opposite; that self interest is the only thing worth enshrining as higher motivation. Or, 'God', however THAT'S defined by those who would presume to judge.
I don't see very many billionaires stepping up to the plate of real social change for the better, mostly because they know they'd be asked to help pay for it. We hear of the exceptions, not the norm. Keep that in mind when reading glowing, often self congratulatory reports of charity work by the uber class.
Where's the idea that they have a responsibility to the society that allowed them to succeed? I'll tell you; it's buried, because most of the ultra rich are one of two types; either those who think they did it all themselves- in spite of payrolls listing thousand of exceptions, or those who know they inherited it and fear they couldn't replicate their parent's success. Instead, they corrupt democracy by incubating ideas like 'the rich aren't like you and me', or 'the privileged earned it (and the unsung supporting cast of thousands of workers didn't)', or my favorite just because it's so blatant, 'they're just better than you are'. Unadulterated BULLSHIT, calculated to create self doubt amongst their enemies... US. Us, as in the 'lower' class.
All men are created equal- it's in our constitution. In the modern age, that includes women, minorities and those who worship a different God... and really all I'm saying here is that it's high time our country started living up to that ideal/standard/expectation.
Neoclassic and Neoliberal economic theory do not.
Yet as I grew up,I realised that just about everything this country calls an advance in social justice is in direct contravention of capitalist oligarchic principles... and that I've recently come to the idea that if that's so, why the Fuck do we as a nation still exalt the self destructive madness of capitalist oligarchy, let alone tolerate it?
'To whom much is given, much is expected.' We've all heard that saying at one point or another... but where in the current scheme of economic thinking has it been reflected? I only see the opposite; that self interest is the only thing worth enshrining as higher motivation. Or, 'God', however THAT'S defined by those who would presume to judge.
I don't see very many billionaires stepping up to the plate of real social change for the better, mostly because they know they'd be asked to help pay for it. We hear of the exceptions, not the norm. Keep that in mind when reading glowing, often self congratulatory reports of charity work by the uber class.
Where's the idea that they have a responsibility to the society that allowed them to succeed? I'll tell you; it's buried, because most of the ultra rich are one of two types; either those who think they did it all themselves- in spite of payrolls listing thousand of exceptions, or those who know they inherited it and fear they couldn't replicate their parent's success. Instead, they corrupt democracy by incubating ideas like 'the rich aren't like you and me', or 'the privileged earned it (and the unsung supporting cast of thousands of workers didn't)', or my favorite just because it's so blatant, 'they're just better than you are'. Unadulterated BULLSHIT, calculated to create self doubt amongst their enemies... US. Us, as in the 'lower' class.
All men are created equal- it's in our constitution. In the modern age, that includes women, minorities and those who worship a different God... and really all I'm saying here is that it's high time our country started living up to that ideal/standard/expectation.
Neoclassic and Neoliberal economic theory do not.
![uncensored_exhibition_3051[1].jpg](/data/attachments/2467/2467743-fd17488a65b5471a0cf539e874425d97.jpg)
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Well, that's intelligent.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
And your point?
![9952dff220c25ffbd008c45e7bc5e9a90dbff989bae6bb18ab9a6fc0ebb89101[1].jpg](/data/attachments/2467/2467745-9e64d1458a0bf5d19f6b8918ce95e6e4.jpg)
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Thanks for trolling.
johhny_reb
Member
lol
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Another interesting comment, from Joseph Brandt, responding to the references opinion piece on al Jazeera;
The article makes many good points. The problem with economists of one theory or another is that the extremes do not work.
Just as our Constitution balances the common goals (national defense, interstate trade, etc) with individual guarantees (the constitutional rights of the first ten amendments) to achieve all of our goals, economic theory must be a compromise of health of the economy (which requires both free enterprise and regulation) and economic health of the individual (which requires guarantees of employment, fair wages, and regulation in the public interest). Most economists serve only business and merely blame the unfortunate to excuse the failures of their theories. Pure socialists often ignore the inefficiencies of excessive guarantees and poorly designed regulation.
But we no longer have a democracy. The economic concentrations that hardly existed when the Constitution was written now control elections and mass media, the very tools needed to restore democracy. No constitutional amendments to limit funding of mass media and elections to limited and registered individual contributions can be passed, or even presented on mass media. So there is also no prospect of economic reform, which requires constitutional guarantees of proper regulation and properly structured income/work guarantees.
The US is not only an unjust economic tyranny, not only not a democracy, it is an empty suit of armor, a mad robot controlled by the rich, blundering around the world and swinging its sword madly at anything progressive, inventing foreign monsters to demand domestic power and accuse its opponent of disloyalty. Aristotle warned of this tyranny over democracy, and the US has been fooled by its former affluence into allowing that to happen. It has been fooled by right wing propaganda into allowing a dark state of surveillance and militarized police to prevent all reform.
The corruption of economists is merely a symptom of the total corruption of the United States by money. The solution may involve moral education, and abandonment of all mass media, but the will of the people is no longer reflected in government. Remember that the Civil Rights movement got exactly nowhere for a century until there were spreading riots in the cities. The threat of burning ghettos is nothing compared to what is needed to restore democracy from economic control. Force will be needed on a grand scale if freedom and justice are to be restored.
The article makes many good points. The problem with economists of one theory or another is that the extremes do not work.
Just as our Constitution balances the common goals (national defense, interstate trade, etc) with individual guarantees (the constitutional rights of the first ten amendments) to achieve all of our goals, economic theory must be a compromise of health of the economy (which requires both free enterprise and regulation) and economic health of the individual (which requires guarantees of employment, fair wages, and regulation in the public interest). Most economists serve only business and merely blame the unfortunate to excuse the failures of their theories. Pure socialists often ignore the inefficiencies of excessive guarantees and poorly designed regulation.
But we no longer have a democracy. The economic concentrations that hardly existed when the Constitution was written now control elections and mass media, the very tools needed to restore democracy. No constitutional amendments to limit funding of mass media and elections to limited and registered individual contributions can be passed, or even presented on mass media. So there is also no prospect of economic reform, which requires constitutional guarantees of proper regulation and properly structured income/work guarantees.
The US is not only an unjust economic tyranny, not only not a democracy, it is an empty suit of armor, a mad robot controlled by the rich, blundering around the world and swinging its sword madly at anything progressive, inventing foreign monsters to demand domestic power and accuse its opponent of disloyalty. Aristotle warned of this tyranny over democracy, and the US has been fooled by its former affluence into allowing that to happen. It has been fooled by right wing propaganda into allowing a dark state of surveillance and militarized police to prevent all reform.
The corruption of economists is merely a symptom of the total corruption of the United States by money. The solution may involve moral education, and abandonment of all mass media, but the will of the people is no longer reflected in government. Remember that the Civil Rights movement got exactly nowhere for a century until there were spreading riots in the cities. The threat of burning ghettos is nothing compared to what is needed to restore democracy from economic control. Force will be needed on a grand scale if freedom and justice are to be restored.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
To say that democracy is dead in this country ignores the fact that it has always been an unfair fight between capital and labor or an entitled majority and a suppressed minority. There was never a golden age for the conduct of politics in this country. Accomplishing anything major politically has always been a bare knuckle fist fight between two or more opponents. Sometimes the fight was figurative, sometimes it was literally a fight and blood was drawn. Corruption is not new either. In the past we had Tammany Hall in New York, Mayor Daly's political machine in Chicago. Recently, Wall Street's actions during the 2008 financial crisis and the Koch Brother's corrupt acts to stifle labor and environmental movements by setting up sham PACs (and I suspect, bankrolling the Teaparty Movement) are recent egregious examples of the rot in our democratic system. But as a famous peasant said in Monty Python's The Holy Grail, "Not dead yet!".
I still have my vote and you still have yours. Those in power don't always win. When they do lose, they start chipping away at the victory but that doesn't mean they will succeed. Conservatives -- and I mean the GOP as well as blue dog democrats -- were against the Social Security act since its inception during the Roosevelt administration. The Bush Jr administration announced that they were going to change the Social Security act. Bush II and his cronies very quickly lost all political capital gained by winning his second term. Social Security and Medicare were good deals for my parents and I expect it will survive going forward. Social security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Bills, and even the clean air act have survived assaults by the right. I think that they are not going away any time soon but people are going to have to fight to protect them. This is all to say that in spite of how bad things look today, we've made progress in the last 50 or 100 years. Heck, recreational use of marijuana is going to be legal in my state soon and I call that progress too.
Shifting gears to the discussion of economic theory or as economists like to call it, the dismal science, I admit that I only took one economics class during college. The name of the course was "Economic History of the United States". The class was a double bagger in that it satisfied the requirements for two economics courses and enabled me to spend more time studying Biochemistry. I was a scientist then and still am. I was a good student but I couldn't accept the dogma that passed for knowledge in the field of economics and still can't. Neoclassical economic theory hinges upon the idea that humans always act in their own self interest. Not true -- people sacrifice themselves for the greater good when necessary. Also, people don't always want more than they need. The Swedes have a term -- Lagom -- that means enough to go around or enough to share. Its a driving concept in their society. I got a good mark in the class but came away from it convinced that Economists and Economics ignore the fact that people are evolved apes. I think that economic theory treats people as if they are a predictable widget. Anybody want to correct me? I can always learn.
We are social animals that protect our own but also protect our place in society and will defend sometimes to the death our tribe or our society in general. Recognizing that "success" is variable depending on the individual, during the first 20 or 30 years of our lives we learn what it takes to "succeed" in our society and we aren't very flexible after that. Some of my fellow apes are super-territoral and accumulate way more -- in terms of money, mates, possessions, land, whatever -- than they ever need. Some, probably most just want to spend time with family and have enough to share -- Lagom.
For myself, I rejected neoliberal/neoclassical economics as too simplistic a long time ago. When discussing a political or social issue, people quoting Freidman or other scholars sound to me like they are babbling. This goes for people that quote the bible in similar situations. If heterodox economists take into account the science of human behavior, biology, physical and social anthropology, as well as the logic behind the current economic system, marxist theory and others, then they might be getting somewhere. That's a pretty tall order.
Alright, I rambled. Maybe I don't even believe everything that I just wrote. I need to think about it and hope for more than stupidhead responses although I expect there will be some of those too. Back to you, ttystykk
I still have my vote and you still have yours. Those in power don't always win. When they do lose, they start chipping away at the victory but that doesn't mean they will succeed. Conservatives -- and I mean the GOP as well as blue dog democrats -- were against the Social Security act since its inception during the Roosevelt administration. The Bush Jr administration announced that they were going to change the Social Security act. Bush II and his cronies very quickly lost all political capital gained by winning his second term. Social Security and Medicare were good deals for my parents and I expect it will survive going forward. Social security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Bills, and even the clean air act have survived assaults by the right. I think that they are not going away any time soon but people are going to have to fight to protect them. This is all to say that in spite of how bad things look today, we've made progress in the last 50 or 100 years. Heck, recreational use of marijuana is going to be legal in my state soon and I call that progress too.
Shifting gears to the discussion of economic theory or as economists like to call it, the dismal science, I admit that I only took one economics class during college. The name of the course was "Economic History of the United States". The class was a double bagger in that it satisfied the requirements for two economics courses and enabled me to spend more time studying Biochemistry. I was a scientist then and still am. I was a good student but I couldn't accept the dogma that passed for knowledge in the field of economics and still can't. Neoclassical economic theory hinges upon the idea that humans always act in their own self interest. Not true -- people sacrifice themselves for the greater good when necessary. Also, people don't always want more than they need. The Swedes have a term -- Lagom -- that means enough to go around or enough to share. Its a driving concept in their society. I got a good mark in the class but came away from it convinced that Economists and Economics ignore the fact that people are evolved apes. I think that economic theory treats people as if they are a predictable widget. Anybody want to correct me? I can always learn.
We are social animals that protect our own but also protect our place in society and will defend sometimes to the death our tribe or our society in general. Recognizing that "success" is variable depending on the individual, during the first 20 or 30 years of our lives we learn what it takes to "succeed" in our society and we aren't very flexible after that. Some of my fellow apes are super-territoral and accumulate way more -- in terms of money, mates, possessions, land, whatever -- than they ever need. Some, probably most just want to spend time with family and have enough to share -- Lagom.
For myself, I rejected neoliberal/neoclassical economics as too simplistic a long time ago. When discussing a political or social issue, people quoting Freidman or other scholars sound to me like they are babbling. This goes for people that quote the bible in similar situations. If heterodox economists take into account the science of human behavior, biology, physical and social anthropology, as well as the logic behind the current economic system, marxist theory and others, then they might be getting somewhere. That's a pretty tall order.
Alright, I rambled. Maybe I don't even believe everything that I just wrote. I need to think about it and hope for more than stupidhead responses although I expect there will be some of those too. Back to you, ttystykk
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Those are some of the more influential books I've read. None of them are used in standard curriculum.
My experience of 2 years of undergrad econ was one of layering an onion. Once one learns the basic micro and macro principles everything else seems to just reiterate those basic principles for the most part, but with different language. I think economics does itself a disservice by not embracing calculus enough (especially integration) , never mind heterodoxy (UMKC perhaps being an exception). It can't properly analyze the dynamics without continuum math, but they are titillated when able to apply a simple 1st order derivative to find some "marginal" value
. So what happens when the equilibrium assumptions breakdown...? Neo-classicals/liberals don't know, and that's why I don't give them much credence beyond the fundamentals. I should note the qualitative arguments which come out of Neo-classical works have some value (i.e. Coase theorem, externalities etc.), although generally only under the assumptions on which they are formed. However, as a quantitative science, forget about it, at least until they start embracing principles of Nature more coherently into the framework. For example, I think economists would benefit greatly from taking 3 physics classes; two intro courses (standard mechanics and E&M) along with a relatively standard course in dynamics based on Anthony French's "Vibrations and Waves". Of course, they would also need to learn Calculus beyond mere derivatives, so 4 courses over three semesters from which to build a good foundation of how to incorporate dynamic thought into the framework would go a long way in repairing the damage of the discrete fallacy IMO.
Anyway, here's Professor Keen giving some of his thoughts on the matter.