|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I don't believe you. quote: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: I'm sorry to hear that you had such an awful class. I really mean that. I think Economics is really cool and I hate hate hate when it's taught shittily as your class clearly was. You had an awful and biased professor and you're 100% right to be upset. He/she should not teach anything, ESPECIALLY not intro to macroeconomics. In fact, he/she should be killed. At the same time, I honestly don't think your experience is representative of the standard introduction to macroeconomics classroom. To provide a competing anecdote, I've seen a very distinguished professor literally say in class that Bernie Sanders was the only man who understood good taxation principle. To provide competing evidence, the authors of introductory macroeconomic textbooks really do, as you put it, "shift from one end to the other." Paul Krugman certainly wouldn't endorse child sweatshops. Bob Gordon constantly mocks Coase far more viciously than anyone in this thread ever has or will. The core of Macroeconomics 101 is, I would say, basic models for how markets succeed and fail. The political edge often tends to come from how much you focus on success and how much on failure - and I know that there are a lot of Macroeconomists who teach introductory classes that could be called failure-heavy (sometimes in more than one way). And then there are some people who just go off the loving rails and we can't fire them because of tenure/research - sounds like your professor was in that group. Jizz Festival posted: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. Analogy Count: 0 
Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Apr 17, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted: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: Haha, this reminds me of the one page of the macro textbook on "Hetereodox Economics" which was basically just "Marx's bad ideas killed millions."
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Haha, this reminds me of the one page of the macro textbook on "Hetereodox Economics" which was basically just "Marx's bad ideas killed millions." Oh so you also had a terrible textbook. Would you mind telling me when you went to College/what textbook you had or when it was published?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:I'm dumb but want to know more, please expound for the idiot gallery like me? Liberalism is a broader ideology than "American standards" of the meaning of the term would indicate, which is why I realize there's a deep problem when someone conflates "liberal" with "left-wing" and "Paul Krugman." The analytic problem there isn't that Paul Krugman is not a liberal. He is, but he is not especially leftist and the touted other side is not "right-wing, as opposed to liberal." They are all liberals. Left and right have meaning here, but only within the field of shared liberal assumptions: there can be left-liberals and right-liberals, but neither of these encapsulates leftism and rightism overall. They each dip their toes. Liberalism is also much more than just economics, but just looking at economic liberalism, the basic uniting principle is capitalism. Not capitalism as a subject of analysis, per se, but capitalism as something that reflects nature rather than historical contingency. This pretense that something contingent and socially constructed is actually a reflection of human nature is what makes it an ideology. Everyone has ideological assumptions, sure, but the key thing is that this is not acknowledged as such in intro econ courses. That is what makes these courses "nakedly ideological." Most college students only get one course (if that) as a gen ed, and what they get has useful information and intellectual tools, so it's not like it has no educational value, but it is all framed within a liberal ideology that is not acknowledged. So, the problem with intro econ courses isn't that they simplify more complex concepts. It's the that simplifications all convey a liberal ideology. You can see the limits of this when considering a guy like Krugman. He is an American liberal, and since there is no real left in American politics, he is thought of as a left-winger. He is on the left wing of liberalism, sure, but that is not "the left," per se. This narrow ideological spectrum in American politics is how we confuse liberals with leftists. He's willing to attack "conservative" economics and its political standard-bearers as "Very Serious People" who ignore reality. He does not have an all-abiding faith in unhindered markets, he is OK with tax-funded stimulus. But look at how he writes on, say, free trade policies. Or, since we're supposed to be impressed with an economics professor who thinks Sanders' tax plans are solid, how he writes about Sanders. Krugman then turns into the Very Serious Person he usually attacks. Another example of these limits is calling the suggestion that the government should correct externalities with price controls "comically left-wing." Or, hell, using expressed support for specific aspects of the Sanders campaign platform as an example of leftism in intro courses. Sanders is way more leftist than any other plausible Presidential candidate in living memory, but he is still more or less straddling the divide between left-liberalism and the rest of leftism overall. What he actually promotes in policy terms is social democracy, which emerged from socialist movements but evolved into a compromise with capitalism. (Do a little looking around and you can find reassurances from American left-liberals that "a democratic socialist isn't like other socialists, they still support capitalism!") Support for Sanders' tax policy specifically as an example of leftism within the field is weaksauce as gently caress. By the way, before we get too excited, this is not some grand conspiracy. It's not like there's some shadowy back-room conclave of economists trying to figure out the best way to brainwash undergrads. What I am describing reflects sincere beliefs within the field, but also a lack of self-reflection on whether these bedrock liberal assumptions are all as natural and obvious as they think. Although, writing this out has been useful for me in terms of self-reflection. I think that history as an academic discipline has a lot of ideological diversity and historians are generally pretty transparent about their ideological assumptions and willing to call each other out for not being so. However, I think I could do more in my own teaching practice to be transparent about my own ideological assumptions. I usually do highlight where I am just on a soapbox so that students don't think I'm telling them truefacts for passing the test or anything (but uh, do they even know what a soapbox is??). That might not be enough, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Liberalism is a broader ideology than "American standards" of the meaning of the term would indicate, which is why I realize there's a deep problem when someone conflates "liberal" with "left-wing" and "Paul Krugman." The analytic problem there isn't that Paul Krugman is not a liberal. He is, but he is not especially leftist and the touted other side is not "right-wing, as opposed to liberal." They are all liberals. Left and right have meaning here, but only within the field of shared liberal assumptions: there can be left-liberals and right-liberals, but neither of these encapsulates leftism and rightism overall. They each dip their toes. To respond to this, I brought up Sanders and Krugman and etc. because I misunderstood what you were saying. People were talking about the Coase theorem as libertarian in the Libertarianism thread, so I kind of assumed that you thought economics 101 had a libertarian bent. Now that I know you were just critiquing it as liberal, I understand that those examples would've looked wildly out of place - I hope you can appreciate this as nothing more than a surface-level miscommunication, admittedly caused a lot by your frequent refusal to respond to me beyond "Good Lord" and "my instincts were right". We were having two very different conversations with each other, one about libertarianism and one about liberalism- I think you noticed this before I did because I made clear everything that was going on in my head and you did not, at least to me. I completely agree that all prominent economists are liberals of one stripe or another. That all said, I completely respect your intellectual foundation in history, but I think that you misunderstand the way that economics professors approach market economies: they're not approached as a natural emergence out of humanity but as a social construction. In my first ever Econ class we spent forever talking about the technology of money and how it led to the creation of the market - and then we read about the history of the marketplace and of the transaction. I think that this is where microeconomics meets macroeconomics - microeconomics on the interactions-between-two-folks-on-an-island level does assume that a lot of itself comes from human nature, but macro is a lot more concerned with interrogating the consequences of social institutions. Markets and money are portrayed like the Federal Reserve: they didn't HAVE to exist, but they do now, and let's try to analyze that because they have a big impact on our lives. In my experience macroeconomics is often presented entirely as analyzing the US economy - which admittedly doesn't give students any tools at all for analyzing economies that aren't liberal, but also doesn't treat the existence of liberal economies as an assumption. What's your take on that? I think that heavy-math semi-proof-based teaching of Economics helps avoid the things that concern you, because it forces an incredibly frank explication of all assumptions (just like in a math proof). I like that Economics instruction is headed in that direction By the way, I'm attending an event at George Mason University in June, which might produce good libertarian thread stories
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Related to the current econ-101 chat, one of my libertarians friends posted this on Facebook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6y0EfFJpFg To give some background, my friend is a property manager in Texas, if that matters at all. I'm not the best at debating, but I wanted to share my thoughts on this to see if I'm missing something. First, the narrator of the video talks about capitalism as though he's arguing against something else. I get what he means is laissez-faire capitalism, and that he's purposely mincing words to be misleading, but let me use his words for now. Myth 1: Pro-Capitalism is Pro-Business. The video states this is not the case because it will force businesses to compete, and that regulations stifle competition at the behest of the corporations. Ergo, get rid of regulations, there will be more competition, and things will be better for the consumer. And this is totally not pro-business, even though it will be a huge boon to businesses. But this seems to ignore the problem with monopolies and barons, which is what you get with lax regulations. What happens if all the competition gets bought out and there is only a single supplier for a certain commodity? Further, the narrator states that "the point of capitalism is to force businesses to compete vigorously" which seems to suggest that it requires regulation to maintain this state, otherwise, what's to prevent monopolies, cartels, price fixing, and other pro-business/anti-consumer practices from occurring? Myth 2: Capitalism Generates Unfair Distribution of Income. Basically, if you work hard, you'll get paid more. The more you work, the more you'll get paid. This said by a man who gets paid more money for sitting around spouting bullshit than any poor rear end in a top hat spending 12 hours a day breaking their backs to make his world work. Oh, capitalism "rewards people who are productive and create value." He literally says, you have to work long hours, have lots of talent, or come up with good ideas. This guy does none of that and gets paid more than most who would fall into any of those three categories. It's that stupid "work hard and you'll make lots of money" mentality that sees people getting trapped in terrible jobs with terrible pay. And if you are in that situation, it's your own fault for working a bad job and you should some how magically get a better job. Further, he claims that regulations hurt funding for welfare programs, and with less regulations we'd be able to fun welfare and anti-poverty programs, as though these things were funded by the businesses through some means other than taxes. Because business would totally fund welfare and anti-poverty programs if the government would just get off their backs! If you can't tell, this is probably the part that makes me the most angry, because it's just pure unadulterated bull crap. He could've just taken a poo poo on camera here and it'd be more intellectually honest and though provoking than this. "Work hard, work long and ye shall be rewarded" except when you don't get rewarded because the company will push their managers to never give you a raise because that would cut into profits and the manager's own bonus. Myth 3: Capitalism is responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. His argument is no, it was government incentives which businesses pounced on without thinking about the consequences. So while the business are partly to blame, it's totally the government's fault for offering those incentives in the first place, and not capitalism at all. This is going more into the weeds, and I've heard both arguments of "deregulation led to 2008" and "government incentivizing risky practices led to 2008". I'll admit that conflicting messages and not having researched it much myself, I don't know the actual answer, except to say perhaps a combination of the two. But, having worked at a small bank myself in the wake of all this, I would put the blame more on the banks themselves for looking at the incentives as easy money, and a lack of oversight or critical thinking to make sure they were lending responsibly rather than just chasing the almighty dollar sign. I also feel that without the incentives, one of two things would've happened; either 2008 would still have happened, or those people whose homes were foreclosed would've been screwed some other way. Because nothing says capitalism like making a quick buck off of loving over poor minorities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Capitalism is the MOST POWERFUL FORCE IN THE WORLD and also so delicate that an extra two pages of government regulation can make it utterly destroy itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Myth 3: Capitalism is responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. His argument is no, it was government incentives which businesses pounced on without thinking about the consequences. So while the business are partly to blame, it's totally the government's fault for offering those incentives in the first place, and not capitalism at all. The incentive banks had to give out loans to people who couldn't pay them back was that they could bundle a bunch of them together into investments that they could then sell to other people. They were able to sell them, despite the loans being so lovely, because they paid the ratings agencies to give these investments the highest ratings. The shittier the loans were, the higher interest rates they could charge, and the more they could sell them for. Any government incentives for giving out loans to low-income people were just a cherry on top. edit: This method of making money was so easy that the banks took out tons of loans to make even more money, leveraging themselves (increasing the ratio of debt) to a dangerous degree. We know that Lehman Brothers, at the very least, used accounting tricks to hide billions of dollars of debt from investors (they did this by classifying short-term loans that were backed with collateral as sales, rather than loans). Once the bad home loans that were making up the investments started to default, the whole thing fell apart because the banks could no longer find buyers for the investments, and they couldn't pay off all the debt they had taken on. Jizz Festival fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Further, the narrator states that "the point of capitalism is to force businesses to compete vigorously" which seems to suggest that it requires regulation to maintain this state, otherwise, what's to prevent monopolies, cartels, price fixing, and other pro-business/anti-consumer practices from occurring?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
What was AIG's evil government incentive for insuring hundreds of billions of dollars worth of derivatives on junk mortgages? What was Lehman's evil government incentive for hanging on to billions of dollars in junk mortgages? Did government also secretly pay them to buy all those billions in bad loans from mortgage issuers? I'm sure these secret incentives existed, and furthermore we should turn over the entire economy to executives and capitalists with no oversight whatsoever...yes these exact same capitalists who will short-sightedly ruin their own companies with tens and hundreds of billions in long term losses to take advantage of a slight revenue boost from a small government incentive this quarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What was AIG's evil government incentive for insuring hundreds of billions of dollars worth of derivatives on junk mortgages? Well, you see, these regulations were corrupting the otherwise equilibrated market because the average consumer was completely aware of and able to act rationally in response to the most arcane and esoteric complexities of the financial markets of 2007
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Well, you see, these regulations were corrupting the otherwise equilibrated market because the average consumer was completely aware of and able to act rationally in response to the most arcane and esoteric complexities of the financial markets of 2007 Welcome to the thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think that heavy-math semi-proof-based teaching of Economics helps avoid the things that concern you, because it forces an incredibly frank explication of all assumptions (just like in a math proof). I like that Economics instruction is headed in that direction Actually I think you'll find that Humans Act, and therefore
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:
The whole 'government incentivized bad practices' gambit is also monstrously dishonest, and often veiled racism. The biggest thing the government did that gets brought up was making redlining illegal. What i redlining? Basically, rejecting loans a priori based only on the person's place of residence. Live in a crappy neighborhood? You're obviously a bad person and you get no loan. It was a great way to stagnate whole segments of society. Had that been an actual thing, the crisis would have happened two years after the reform, not twenty. I refer the thread to the amazing 2008 'debate' between Matt Taibbi and Byron York, where that line of bunk should have been buried. It's hard not to bold everything that comes out of York's mouth. quote:
I also love that Taibbi gets York's publication name wrong at the end, but he still corrects it. In his place, I might have let people look for my lovely econ writing in the wrong place. Full thing here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/10/matt_taibbi_and_byron_york_but.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:The whole 'government incentivized bad practices' gambit is also monstrously dishonest, and often veiled racism. The biggest thing the government did that gets brought up was making redlining illegal. What i redlining? Basically, rejecting loans a priori based only on the person's place of residence. Live in a crappy neighborhood? You're obviously a bad person and you get no loan. It was a great way to stagnate whole segments of society. I'm fully aware of red lining, what it is, and what it looks like in action. I worked at a bank run by elitist assholes, one of whom is, surprise surprise, a hard core libertarian and a loan officer for one of the bigger Minnesota banks, if memory serves me correctly. My short time there I didn't get much into the nitty gritty about what happened in 2008, but was instead treated to my boss's rants about regulations and minorities defaulting on their loans. As someone who supposedly worked for the FDIC, you would think he'd be more sensitive and mindful of stuff, but I guess if you're the kind of idiot to feed chocolate to a dog you've already made diabetic, maybe not. I'll read that article in the morning, though. I'm quite interested now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I guess if you're the kind of idiot to feed chocolate to a dog you've already made diabetic, maybe not. A rational dog would not eat the offered chocolate unless its utility from doing so exceeded the disutility from theobramine poisoning, don't blame your boss for entering into a mutually beneficial market transaction with the canine
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:A rational dog would not eat the offered chocolate unless its utility from doing so exceeded the disutility from theobramine poisoning, don't blame your boss for entering into a mutually beneficial market transaction with the canine
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
What other...what other kinds of "transaction" can I enter into with the beasts of the field? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What other...what other kinds of "transaction" can I enter into with the beasts of the field? Does classical conditioning count? (When businesses do it to people it's called "marketing".)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What other...what other kinds of "transaction" can I enter into with the beasts of the field? I thought libertarians defaulted to a society where child exploitation/molestation was the goal? Don't besmirch Rothbard's good name with your talk of base bestiality!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:To respond to this, I brought up Sanders and Krugman and etc. because I misunderstood what you were saying. People were talking about the Coase theorem as libertarian in the Libertarianism thread, so I kind of assumed that you thought economics 101 had a libertarian bent. Now that I know you were just critiquing it as liberal, I understand that those examples would've looked wildly out of place - I hope you can appreciate this as nothing more than a surface-level miscommunication, admittedly caused a lot by your frequent refusal to respond to me beyond "Good Lord" and "my instincts were right". We were having two very different conversations with each other, one about libertarianism and one about liberalism- I think you noticed this before I did because I made clear everything that was going on in my head and you did not, at least to me. I completely agree that all prominent economists are liberals of one stripe or another. This is a late reply, but first off, I just want to say that I think I was way too abrasive and combative in talking to you before. We were talking past each other and I assumed you were more ignorant than was really warranted. Sorry for that. I appreciate your taking the time to reply. I didn't know that there was that much awareness of the socially constructed nature of market institutions within the discipline, so that's good info to know and I'm glad to have learned it. I can see how macro and micro might be different in how they approach the "nature vs. artifice" question. I don't really know for sure how much this comes across in Econ 101-level macro courses, though but I can only speak from limited personal experience here. I remember that the class was presented with the "rational actor" model, but only on being questioned about it did the professor explain that this was an assumption that was useful for models but not 100% true to life. I don't think he was trying to hide anything, it just didn't occur to him. While a lot of the subject matter was specific to US government policy, I think the underlying models were very general in how they were explained. The lesson on comparative advantage drew on the good old "wine from Portugal, cloth from England" example, which made it seem like an abstract and natural force since this was clearly just an arbitrary example rather than one drawn from anything but a vague history of commodity production in actual countries. So, even though the subjects were often specific to things like Federal Reserve policy, the impression was that these policies were attempts as addressing and channeling natural forces. I'm not even opposed to the proposition that various market forces may be reflections of things we might call "human nature," psychology and genetics and such. It's just that I suspect not enough is done in college courses to try to connect these ideas to other disciplines (such as psychology) which would provide a more complete picture of how economic behavior relates to some fundamental of human behavior. Now, you might say that there's just not enough time to do this in intro courses, or that it would confuse or overwhelm students. That may be so. But that results in conveying a degree of ideological liberalism, just in the sense of treating markets as natural even if not teaching that they are, by default. I don't have an easy solution here. However, I don't see this problem as analogous to simplifications of models of the atom for high school physics. By the way, when it comes to money and its history, is there any grappling with anthropological research that debunks to still-often-heard "story of barter" as an origin? Is there an awareness of it, and if so, is it just not convincing? I'm talking about David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years, here. quote:By the way, I'm attending an event at George Mason University in June, which might produce good libertarian thread stories Looking forward to it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I thought libertarians defaulted to a society where child exploitation/molestation was the goal? Don't besmirch Rothbard's good name with your talk of base bestiality! What about baby animals? e: Being slightly more serious, I assume that most libertarians consider animals to be mere property and thus are quite alright with animal rape & abuse. But I wonder how, or if, they justify this position. Similarly, are there libertarians out there who recognize that some animals are people, and advocate for signing contracts with your dog? Mornacale fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
I think if there were any libertarian vegans, they would have told us. They would have told everyone!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:What about baby animals? I can imagine some hand-wavey argument about how abusing/raping your animals makes them less productive (that's opportunity cost of time she could be breeding with a bull!), even though in practice we have factory farms and it took Temple Grandin's non-profit-based motivations to prove to the Rugged Individual farmers that you lose less cattle to the cleaning setup if you keep them calm
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
I need to vent some Facebook rage. I thought I could get something worthwhile out of this guy, but I just can't anymore. I tried to explain the point of a progressive tax system, and he's just too dense for it.facebook dude posted:You say there's no element of punishment.... But you just listed crimes against humanity as being the reason someone can amass wealth. So, yeah, it sounds a lot like punishment. facebook dude posted:"If "utility" goes down, than claim goes down" can be summarized on the playground. "Well Ms. Thompson, he wasn't using his pen... he has 4... so I took one." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
If two, or heaven forbid, 4 kids learn instead of just one, we are all worse off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I need to vent some Facebook rage. I thought I could get something worthwhile out of this guy, but I just can't anymore. I tried to explain the point of a progressive tax system, and he's just too dense for it. But to be more accurate to the real world, the teacher gave that student 3 of his 4 pens and asked that he share them with the other students.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I need to vent some Facebook rage. I thought I could get something worthwhile out of this guy, but I just can't anymore. I tried to explain the point of a progressive tax system, and he's just too dense for it. Have him explain how assigning resources based on who has the most wealth via currency, since that is what the market does, somehow equates into "efficiency". Also assuming all governments have the same attitude towards how tax revenue is treated, which is just self-evidently untrue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
In other news, SCOTUS is hearing the case of fraidy cat pants-wetting concerned moms versus cool people what know civil liberties means some dying. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...id=ss_fb-bottom Holy gently caress though how is this even a case seriously why wasn't taking the license away in case of refusal good enough. Losing your license already is the punishment for reneging on the agreement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:33
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:In other news, SCOTUS is hearing the case of fraidy cat pants-wetting concerned moms versus cool people what know civil liberties means some dying. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...id=ss_fb-bottom Because they can still demand performance-based sobriety tests which imo are closer to the spirit of the law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
 My libertarian friends are good eggs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Another libertarian missing what the mainstream form of his ideology actually represents
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Mises comes out pro-Harriet Tubman! Though they're distinctly not happy about Hamilton keeping his spot. This appears to be the second time they've ever mentioned Tubman on the site, the first being a newsletter from 1997 that I don't feel like reading. I've actually talked about the "non-presidents on money" thing they go into, even mentioning Salk specifically, but I'd still want to keep Lincoln on money because I'm not a neoconfederate lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Mises comes out pro-Harriet Tubman! Though they're distinctly not happy about Hamilton keeping his spot. This appears to be the second time they've ever mentioned Tubman on the site, the first being a newsletter from 1997 that I don't feel like reading. I've actually talked about the "non-presidents on money" thing they go into, even mentioning Salk specifically, but I'd still want to keep Lincoln on money because I'm not a neoconfederate lunatic. Shouldn't have looked at the comment section 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Shouldn't have looked at the comment section Hey, that way the reunited US could have also included a huge chunk of the Caribbean that had been forcibly converted to slave states and taken over by the CSA
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Hey, that way the reunited US could have also included a huge chunk of the Caribbean that had been forcibly converted to slave states and taken over by the CSA If the CSA had alien space bats at their disposal, they should've used them at Gettysburg. Sacagawea should've replaced Jackson just for the irony though IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
I love how people who froth at the mouth about the sanctity of property rights and how evil Lincoln was for invading the south, praise a woman who was engaging in theft and working for the Union. That and every meme I see stating her being affiliated with the Republican party. Also, cue idiot libertarian friends on Facebook equating Sanders to Hitler because "democratic socialism" sounds just like "democratically elected national socialist Hitler."
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I love how people who froth at the mouth about the sanctity of property rights and how evil Lincoln was for invading the south, praise a woman who was engaging in theft and working for the Union. That and every meme I see stating her being affiliated with the Republican party. Doesn't seem that weird, I think jrod would like her. Remember his whole civil war deal was it was wrong to invade the CSA and kill a bunch of soldiers to end slavery, we should have avoided all that death and let slavery end with a slave revolt. As long as those slaves don't kill anyone like in Haiti then presumably it must be crushed with extreme violence until slaves learn to revolt nonviolently
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Jrod only supports that position because it lets him pretend like he's not pro-slavery while still condemning and working to undo the one and only way the slaves were actually freed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
You could have proposed that the government compensate the slave-holding classes for their lost "property" in some manner (which I believe did happen on a limited basis in the pro-Union border states) which I think was tried with some success in Brazil around that time frame. But you're still interfering with the sacred right of Property, and you're also probably going to have to have TAXES to pay for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 16:50
|
|
