|
Going to do some self-quoting here. I posted this:Buried alive posted:... To which he responded with: Cingulate posted:No, that's a 100% accurate summary. You have perfectly grasped and rephrased the essence of my position. (Maybe the dissonance you perceive would disappear once I could convince you that I am, contrary to public opinion, not in fact pro libertarian, but, as I have repeatedly stated, helplessly skeptic first and a social democrat second?) So..yeah, characterizing him as some kind of capitalist and citing Norway as a capitalist utopia isn't accurate. Norway goes against point 1 (for realsies socialism doesn't necessarily lead to tyrant-mode) so now it's on him to lend to support to the idea that Libertarianism can lead to societies which are found to be okay, which is where every bit of libertarianism I've encountered so far falls on its face. There's an insistence that all actions and interactions be 100% voluntary, but that simply doesn't seem to be how the world works. I don't even mean in the sense of governments being set up as they are, I mean if there's some sort of social structure providing a benefit to various people in society, it probably benefits you in some way as well regardless of whether you sign on with that structure or not. Since you can't help but benefit, you have to pay. Or, if you're a libertarian, leave I guess. Then they either don't go into the practical difficulties of leaving a society or any objections that they raise can be raised equally well regardless of what the society, or societies, look like.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Okay, since Cingulate brought it up offhand, let's talk about social democracy in Northern Europe and it's history. This is interesting! A brief search makes it look like Sweden's system may have come about in the same way, with the Social Democrats there citing Marx a lot until the 80s, but I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:This is interesting! A brief search makes it look like Sweden's system may have come about in the same way, with the Social Democrats there citing Marx a lot until the 80s, but I could be wrong. I don't know Sweden's political history nearly as well as I should, but there was a lot of ideological crossovers between the Labor-movements in the Scandinavian countries, so Norway, Sweden and Denmark did all influence each other. Part of it, I think - and I'm just speculating here - is that we weren't really a 'vital' part of the cold war, and only peripheral players internationally. Until the 1970s, we were honestly considered either kind of backwards, or as fairly hilly, remote countries that weren't of all that great importance except as speedbumps for the USSR in the event of WW3. We all had industry that was reasonably competitive, but nothing spectacular, and Sweden and Denmark were considered the 'big' Scandinavian countries. Then Norway found oil in the 70s and that changed a bit. The interesting thing to note is that the government immediately nationalised the oil reserves and set up a state-owned company to exploit them, and temporarily leased instead of selling drilling-rights to the big international oil-companies ( whereas Denmark did sell, to the everlasting annoyance of the Danes afterwards ), and then decided to stick as much of that money in the bank as we possibly could. Currently, all that oil-money is in a sovereign wealth fund which is supposed to pay for the impending pension-crunch that's coming as our boomers hit retirement age en masse. Which, again, is wholly in line with socialist thinking. Whether this astounding influx of wealth has made us better as people or as a country is... debatable, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
If JRod comes back I wanna see him try and defend the Coase theorem. We talked about it in my microeconomics class today and it seems like utter bull that he would drool over
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:If JRod comes back I wanna see him try and defend the Coase theorem. We talked about it in my microeconomics class today and it seems like utter bull that he would drool over Do tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do tell. So, well-defined Property Rights prevent negative externalities for firms, you see, and when you define property well businesses will gain incentive to stop polluting and making GBS threads on people because those people will be able to bargain with them. This requires ignoring a poo poo ton of reality to work. For example, a lot of corporate pollution has led to higher cancer rates in Appalachia. Even though people got cancer, we can totally stop pollution if those people simply BARGAIN with the corporations polluting there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
The other forms of preventing negative externalities would be things that are bad like taxation and regulation
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Hey Cingulate, why do you feel so helpless in the face of your own skepticism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I don't know Sweden's political history nearly as well as I should, but there was a lot of ideological crossovers between the Labor-movements in the Scandinavian countries, so Norway, Sweden and Denmark did all influence each other. Part of it, I think - and I'm just speculating here - is that we weren't really a 'vital' part of the cold war, and only peripheral players internationally. Until the 1970s, we were honestly considered either kind of backwards, or as fairly hilly, remote countries that weren't of all that great importance except as speedbumps for the USSR in the event of WW3. We all had industry that was reasonably competitive, but nothing spectacular, and Sweden and Denmark were considered the 'big' Scandinavian countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Don't you guys have titanic reserves of Thorium? You should get on that technology ASAP and rule the world as Viking gods again. Once you're the power magnates you can resume sacking cathedrals and monasteries. The danelaw will rise again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:So, well-defined Property Rights prevent negative externalities for firms, you see, and when you define property well businesses will gain incentive to stop polluting and making GBS threads on people because those people will be able to bargain with them. This requires ignoring a poo poo ton of reality to work. Coase, and most everyone who teaches the Coase theorem, were/are super aware that Coasian negotiations rarely take place in reality due to high transaction costs and ill-defined bargaining rights - the Coase theorem is (a) a tool for identifying the optimal level of externalities and (b) an argument in favor of better defining property rights in such a way that people adversely affected by pollution have an entity which can protect them. For example, in the case of Applachian pollution one would want the government to assist in advocating on behalf of Applachian property-owners, at which point the Coasian negotiation basically becomes equivalent to a Pigouvian tax in everything but name It's a little silly to condemn an economic theorem for ignoring a shitton of reality; everything in undergraduate economics is work in broad-strokes abstraction and useful fictions that only becomes useful in policy matters (if ever) when you enter in graduate work and beyond. It's like how in middle school we were taught that protons and neutrons were indivisible because we were too dumb to learn about quarks and gluons and stuff
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Coase, and most everyone who teaches the Coase theorem, were/are super aware that Coasian negotiations rarely take place in reality due to high transaction costs and ill-defined bargaining rights - the Coase theorem is (a) a tool for identifying the optimal level of externalities and (b) an argument in favor of better defining property rights in such a way that people adversely affected by pollution have an entity which can protect them. For example, in the case of Applachian pollution one would want the government to assist in advocating on behalf of Applachian property-owners, at which point the Coasian negotiation basically becomes equivalent to a Pigouvian tax in everything but name Grade-school reductions of nuclear physics aren't as nakedly ideological as Econ 101.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It's a little silly to condemn an economic theorem for ignoring a shitton of reality; everything in undergraduate economics is work in broad-strokes abstraction and useful fictions that only becomes useful in policy matters (if ever) when you enter in graduate work and beyond. It's like how in middle school we were taught that protons and neutrons were indivisible because we were too dumb to learn about quarks and gluons and stuff I still think the fact that they tell undergrads that it's worth its salt is bullshit. GunnerJ said it better
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
When I took Econ 101, there were learning experiences that went beyond the content of the textbook and the lessons. For example, the textbook itself: the thing cost like 130 loving dollars. So I bought used copy for $75, which is still poo poo but not as poo poo. Then on the first day of class I made a startling discovery when half the class was taken up by a rep from the publisher explaining the online study and review quizlet app that we'd be using for homework assignments worth 15% of our grades. It seems we could log onto the system using a code found in an insert in the book. And for those of us with a used copy that has no such code, fear not! We would have the opportunity to purchase a key for $45. Anyway, the quizzes were interesting insights into the agenda behind low-level econ requirements. I took a bunch of screenshots of things I found "interesting," although I don't know why I found them all interesting anymore. I also don't want to bias anyone's own authentic discovery of the learning solutions which this product activatized: https://imgur.com/a/A4VTd
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Happy belated Tax Day, you Hitlers! I hope you had as much fun as I did, marching from home to home (with guns!) stealing money from all the innocent hard-working "[i posted:Taxes[/i] It's like Rage Christmas for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Happy belated Tax Day, you Hitlers! I hope you had as much fun as I did, marching from home to home (with guns!) stealing money from all the innocent hard-working jfc, they call us Stalins not Hitlers. Hitler was a good guy by their standards because at least Hitler something something and Stalin was worse with no redeeming qualities. UNLIKE HITLER! (I am not a Stalinist, just saying our horrible rear end in a top hat was slightly better than their horrible rear end in a top hat)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
I think King Leopold was more their speed, honestly
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:jfc, they call us Stalins not Hitlers. Hitler was a good guy by their standards because at least Hitler something something and Stalin was worse with no redeeming qualities. UNLIKE HITLER!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:the American Lenin 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:jfc, they call us Stalins not Hitlers. Hitler was a good guy by their standards because at least Hitler something something and Stalin was worse with no redeeming qualities. UNLIKE HITLER! Libertarians are really weird about Hitler. Many of them claim that Hitler was actually a socialist, because one of the letters in "NAZI" stands for "socialist" in German. I've actually met people in real life who believed this. When confronted with the fact that Hitler was staunchly anti-socialist, and that Hitler rounded up socialists and communists and put them in the concentration camps first, they just re-affirm that "socialist" is in the acronym therefore Hitler was a socialist  And then other Libertarians actually understand that Hitler hated socialists, and libertarians also hate socialists (and some of the time, also Jews), so Hitler probably wasn't all bad, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Libertarians are really weird about Hitler. Many of them claim that Hitler was actually a socialist, because one of the letters in "NAZI" stands for "socialist" in German. I've actually met people in real life who believed this. When confronted with the fact that Hitler was staunchly anti-socialist, and that Hitler rounded up socialists and communists and put them in the concentration camps first, they just re-affirm that "socialist" is in the acronym therefore Hitler was a socialist Those who know just enough to be epically stupid pass this off as just another example of leftist splitting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Don't forget working in a slur on Abraham Lincoln, the American Lenin, who singlehandedly destroyed freedom. Did someone say ABE LINCOLN?  
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Did someone say ABE LINCOLN? I have to ask... Did you search DiLorenzo? Or did you search Lincoln to get that result. I know it is sort of a circle of a Venn diagram, but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:I have to ask... Did you search DiLorenzo? Or did you search Lincoln to get that result. That's a snippet from his author page. Look at the dates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Grade-school reductions of nuclear physics aren't as nakedly ideological as Econ 101. Econ 101 is at times comically left-wing (all externalities must be corrected through government price control) and comically right-wing (absent externalities, the government is Lord Shiva, destroyer of Surplus and creator of deadweight loss). I think it's silly to say that Econ 101 on the whole is leftwing or rightwing, given that many of the professors who teach and write textbooks for those classes are liberal, especially by American standards Yes, the third-most assigned Econ text in the nation was written by Coase, and the most-assigned one by Mankiw, but the second-most assigned was written by Paul Krugman and the fourth-most assigned one was written by Oliver Blanchard: http://explorer.opensyllabusproject.org/ Twerkteam Pizza posted:I still think the fact that they tell undergrads that it's worth its salt is bullshit. GunnerJ said it better Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Yeah, the issue here isn't whatever you're vaguely and inaccurately calling "left wing" or "right wing." Like you'll notice I didn't say anything about these courses being one or the other of those things, nor does "liberal by American standards" (lmao) factor in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Yeah, the issue here isn't whatever you're vaguely and inaccurately calling "left wing" or "right wing." Like you'll notice I didn't say anything about these courses being one or the other of those things, nor does "liberal by American standards" (lmao) factor in. Well, you said that it was "nakedly ideological", so that would imply that there's some political/economic ideology that it exists to service, right? What's that ideology if it can't be mapped onto the economic left-right divide as we experience it in American politics and economics as a field? And what about my use of left/right wing was vague or inaccurate? Some of the pretty major economists behind ECON 101 (both its teaching and its textbooks) are super-liberal and some are super-conservative and they both end up seeing a lot of use and saying a lot of the same stuff, so I don't see the political ideology here. Maybe the possibly far more destructive ideology of "Economics is a useful science", which is arguably political (I've written papers about how it is political) but not really political in the way that DnD discusses politics Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Well, you said that it was "nakedly ideological", so that would imply that there's some political/economic ideology that it exists to service, right? What's that ideology if it can't be mapped onto the economic left-right divide as we experience it in American politics and economics as a field? Good lord.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Good lord. Can you answer the question? I really want to know! I thought you meant that econ 101 classes are typically super-libertarian, but I'm responding like you said that and you're acting like I'm crazy. What ideology is pushed by econ 101 in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Can you answer the question? I really want to know! I thought you meant that econ 101 classes are typically super-libertarian, but I'm responding like you said that and you're acting like I'm crazy. What ideology is pushed by econ 101 in your opinion? Anti-degrowth? Money as utility?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Anti-degrowth? Money as utility? As someone who's read econ 101 textbooks as student, editor, and volunteer reviewer for a department, I haven't seen anyone treat money as a source of utility in and of itself, merely as a technology used to distribute things that give people utility. For example, don't give someone a gift card, give them cash because that allows them to purchase a wider variety of goods that might give them utility. A lot of econ 101 classes introduce money pretty late into the class, starting off first with introduction to resource distribution and a lot of Robinson Crusoe analogies Pigouvian taxes and even the Coase Theorem are both attempts to respond to overgrowth by introducing incentives for degrowth. Economists view overgrowth as a measurable market failure and degrowth as the appropriate government correction in that instance and that's something that comes up in a basic economics class - or, depending on the circumstances, overgrowth as the consequence of inappropriate government intervention in the first place I feel like everyone's describing econ 101 as a class at every university like it were an econ 101 at George Mason University Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Can you answer the question? I really want to know! I thought you meant that econ 101 classes are typically super-libertarian, but I'm responding like you said that and you're acting like I'm crazy. What ideology is pushed by econ 101 in your opinion? Liberalism. Too clear up your confusion, libertarianism relates to liberalism roughly as evangelical fundamentalist Christianity relates to Protestantism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Liberalism. Too clear up your confusion, libertarianism relates to liberalism roughly as evangelical fundamentalist Christianity relates to Protestantism. I know the difference between liberalism and libertarianism (I'm not dumb or confused about that, and I don't know how I indicated either), but I don't see how Econ 101 lends itself to liberal thinking at all? Your standard microeconomics 101 class involves nothing that could be described as liberalism, and your standard macroeconomics 101 class is going to poo poo all over classical liberalism a TON of times. Pretty much lecture/chapter 1 is Adam Smith and lectures/chapter 2-20 are all the things that he forgot/failed to account for Speaking as someone who is surrounded by the teaching of Econ 101, the students of Econ 101, the textbooks of Econ 101, the professors of Econ 101, I can say that the clas you are describing is super foreign to me Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
This is why I went with "good lord" at first, glad to see my instincts were right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is why I went with "good lord" at first, glad to see my instincts were right. What instincts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is why I went with "good lord" at first, glad to see my instincts were right. I'm dumb but want to know more, please expound for the idiot gallery like me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Speaking as someone who is surrounded by the teaching of Econ 101, the students of Econ 101, the textbooks of Econ 101, the professors of Econ 101, I can say that the clas you are describing is super foreign to me I don't believe you. You think being Left-wing is being pro-government. You don't see how a class that you apparently breathe isn't ideological as gently caress. I have my doubts that introductory microeconomic or macroeconomic courses shift from one end to the other considering my intro Macroeconomic course taught me that: - Sweatshops being bad is a logical fallacy! Those children are paid $0.10 an hour! - Lenin was a Brutal Dictator! - The fall of the Berlin wall shows that communism will NEVER work! Lastly, if you could not use analogy that'd be cool too. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Pretty much lecture/chapter 1 is Adam Smith and lectures/chapter 2-20 are all the things that he forgot/failed to account for Ah, but not stuff that he got wrong. Almost as if these textbooks are using his old liberalism as a starting point for some sort of new liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 09:05
|
|
