The Day After... Italy.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I'm not an idiot, I'm just not self-circumscribed within the limits of discussion set by elite circles.  granted this will limit my career prospects if I don't give it up; but that's fine, and I have no intention of doing so.  nearly all of your Serious discussion have absolutely no meaning to the majority of the people on the planet, because it isn't intended to care about them.  I don't necessarily care about them either, but I get a high out of it, and I find them on the whole far more interesting.

LOL, "limits of discussion set by elite circles" again your absolutely clueless. Things like interest rates, growth, efficiency, budgets, etc. aren't topics picked because they are "limits of the elite". They are picked because they are reality! They may not have meaning to most people, but they have huge consequence to most people(and some people here actually care about helping people in reality not in theory).

they're 'picked' because they're the issues that govern the affairs of relations between elite groups.  while they of course have tangential effects on large amounts of people, this is immaterial, as there is no avenue for the people to have an impact on interest rates, the Eurozone crisis, etc.  no avenue except to resist, which is exceedingly dangerous when taken to its limits, and after working 70 hours a week in dead end jobs they're unlikely to have the time or energy to form any opinion at all.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I'm not an idiot, I'm just not self-circumscribed within the limits of discussion set by elite circles.  granted this will limit my career prospects if I don't give it up; but that's fine, and I have no intention of doing so.  nearly all of your Serious discussion have absolutely no meaning to the majority of the people on the planet, because it isn't intended to care about them.  I don't necessarily care about them either, but I get a high out of it, and I find them on the whole far more interesting.

I trust you don't believe in the above yourself, do you?

what's not to believe?

[Gustaf]

I'm not an idiot, I'm just not self-circumscribed within the limits of discussion set by elite circles.  granted this will limit my career prospects if I don't give it up; but that's fine, and I have no intention of doing so.  nearly all of your Serious discussion have absolutely no meaning to the majority of the people on the planet, because it isn't intended to care about them.  I don't necessarily care about them either, but I get a high out of it, and I find them on the whole far more interesting.

I trust you don't believe in the above yourself, do you?

what's not to believe?

The whole cliché...I find it hard to believe that a real person would think of themselves that way. Sticking it to the man!

The idea that economic realities do not matter for people is also ridiculous, but I'm well aware that many think so, unfortunately.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I didn't say they don't matter to people, I said 1) they're not designed with the general population in mind, and 2) there is no way for the general population to impact economic policy while remaining within the system, so it may as well not.


I'm obviously not 'sticking it to the man' by posting on a message board, but plan to in the future, by defending terrorists, murderers, etc for a living.  maybe something else, who knows.

[Gustaf]

I didn't say they don't matter to people, I said 1) they're not designed with the general population in mind, and 2) there is no way for the general population to impact economic policy while remaining within the system, so it may as well not.


I'm obviously not 'sticking it to the man' by posting on a message board, but plan to in the future, by defending terrorists, murderers, etc for a living.  maybe something else, who knows.

Well, that is less ridiculous, but potentially contradictory and still rather ridiculous.

See, I get that the second paragraph is decent self-parody but it was hard to tell with that previous post.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I think what you're picking up on is that the gap between my enjoying making an argument and believing it is true or correct or whatever is very small or even non-existent.  this shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't 'actually believe' what I say.

[Gustaf]

I think what you're picking up on is that the gap between my enjoying making an argument and believing it is true or correct or whatever is very small or even non-existent.  this shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't 'actually believe' what I say.

This isn't about arguments, it's about, say, perceptions.

[© Tweed the Younger]

sure.  and what one perceives is highly dependent on where one is situated.

[© Tweed the Younger]

btw I feel great right now.  for the first time since I got on this new medication I've had roughly full nights sleep of natural sleep for two nights in a row.  plus I'm buzzed on some iced coffee.

[Gustaf]

sure.  and what one perceives is highly dependent on where one is situated.

I don't really buy that type of fatalism, I'm afraid.

[Wonkish1]

I'm not an idiot, I'm just not self-circumscribed within the limits of discussion set by elite circles.  granted this will limit my career prospects if I don't give it up; but that's fine, and I have no intention of doing so.  nearly all of your Serious discussion have absolutely no meaning to the majority of the people on the planet, because it isn't intended to care about them.  I don't necessarily care about them either, but I get a high out of it, and I find them on the whole far more interesting.

This just shows you have no clue!

LOL, "limits of discussion set by elite circles" again your absolutely clueless. Things like interest rates, growth, efficiency, budgets, etc. aren't topics picked because they are "limits of the elite". They are picked because they are reality! They may not have meaning to most people, but they have huge consequence to most people(and some people here actually care about helping people in reality not in theory).

they're 'picked' because they're the issues that govern the affairs of relations between elite groups.  while they of course have tangential effects on large amounts of people, this is immaterial, as there is no avenue for the people to have an impact on interest rates, the Eurozone crisis, etc.  no avenue except to resist, which is exceedingly dangerous when taken to its limits, and after working 70 hours a week in dead end jobs they're unlikely to have the time or energy to form any opinion at all.

[Wonkish1]

I didn't say they don't matter to people, I said 1) they're not designed with the general population in mind, and 2) there is no way for the general population to impact economic policy while remaining within the system, so it may as well not.


I'm obviously not 'sticking it to the man' by posting on a message board, but plan to in the future, by defending terrorists, murderers, etc for a living.  maybe something else, who knows.

They aren't "designed" they are mathematics. What your essentially saying is that you refuse to believe that 2+2=4 is beneficial for society and so wouldn't it be so much more awesome if 2+2=5. The only difference is with an economy this math spans a lot more areas and is more complicated. I mean you apparently have no desire to have a clue as to what is reality in the world and instead just want continue to say that you believe in economic unicorns.

[opebo]

They aren't "designed" they are mathematics. What your essentially saying is that you refuse to believe that 2+2=4 is beneficial for society and so wouldn't it be so much more awesome if 2+2=5. The only difference is with an economy this math spans a lot more areas and is more complicated. I mean you apparently have no desire to have a clue as to what is reality in the world and instead just want continue to say that you believe in economic unicorns.

The legal structure (the force behind) capitalist economy is an act of the State, Wonk.  Nothing about the economic affairs and events you see before you today is a 'natural' phenomenon, and it has no similarity to a mathematical equation.  It is simply political choice - the bad choices of the neo-liberal era since Reagan.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I didn't say they don't matter to people, I said 1) they're not designed with the general population in mind, and 2) there is no way for the general population to impact economic policy while remaining within the system, so it may as well not.


I'm obviously not 'sticking it to the man' by posting on a message board, but plan to in the future, by defending terrorists, murderers, etc for a living.  maybe something else, who knows.

They aren't "designed" they are mathematics. What your essentially saying is that you refuse to believe that 2+2=4 is beneficial for society and so wouldn't it be so much more awesome if 2+2=5. The only difference is with an economy this math spans a lot more areas and is more complicated. I mean you apparently have no desire to have a clue as to what is reality in the world and instead just want continue to say that you believe in economic unicorns.

"...'pure' economic theory, that is economic theory which abstracts from a specific social structure, is impossible.  It would be similar to 'pure' anatomy, abstracted from the specific species which is to be examined."  -Ernest Mandel, 1976

the 'objective' economic logic is, of course, a battlefield of its own.

[Wonkish1]

I didn't say they don't matter to people, I said 1) they're not designed with the general population in mind, and 2) there is no way for the general population to impact economic policy while remaining within the system, so it may as well not.


I'm obviously not 'sticking it to the man' by posting on a message board, but plan to in the future, by defending terrorists, murderers, etc for a living.  maybe something else, who knows.

They aren't "designed" they are mathematics. What your essentially saying is that you refuse to believe that 2+2=4 is beneficial for society and so wouldn't it be so much more awesome if 2+2=5. The only difference is with an economy this math spans a lot more areas and is more complicated. I mean you apparently have no desire to have a clue as to what is reality in the world and instead just want continue to say that you believe in economic unicorns.

"...'pure' economic theory, that is economic theory which abstracts from a specific social structure, is impossible.  It would be similar to 'pure' anatomy, abstracted from the specific species which is to be examined."  -Ernest Mandel, 1976

the 'objective' economic logic is, of course, a battlefield of its own.

Well first of all your not even arguing with economic practice, but instead with economic measurements calling them "limits of the elite". Even if you wanted to (rather stupidly) argue that you somehow possessed more understanding of the issues to be a better decider of economic policy you wouldn't be able to change the objective realities existing in the world. The current interest rate on a 10 year Italian bond is an objective reality, the current total budget is an objective reality, the total GDP in any country is an objective reality, efficiency is an objective reality, etc. you can't change those things by just willing them to be different. The only thing you can do is change policy that impacts those things.

But since you can't even tell the difference between objective economic metrics and economic theory I don't doubt anybody should take you posting that quote seriously because you don't even understand what he meant.

[© Tweed the Younger]

you're familiar with Ernest Mandel?

[Wonkish1]

you're familiar with Ernest Mandel?

Yes he was a Marxist!

Which by the way its particularly odd that you would quote a man who's economic school of thought has been thrown in the ash heap of history. Its funny though that I doubt you could even grasp the arguments made by famous Marxist economists.

And its quite telling as to how "out there" you exactly are.

[© Tweed the Younger]

there has actually been a large-scale academic revival of Marxism since the fall of the USSR.

[Wonkish1]

there has actually been a large-scale academic revival of Marxism since the fall of the USSR.

I wouldn't call it "academic" and instead call it wishful thinking by clueless idiots.

[Gustaf]

there has actually been a large-scale academic revival of Marxism since the fall of the USSR.

Haha! Not in economics, there hasn't. Not that Marx didn't contribute back in the day, but referring to him in modern economics is like referencing Freud in modern psychology (well, worse actually).

[opebo]

there has actually been a large-scale academic revival of Marxism since the fall of the USSR.

Haha! Not in economics, there hasn't. Not that Marx didn't contribute back in the day, but referring to him in modern economics is like referencing Freud in modern psychology (well, worse actually).

Whether or not a particular school of thought is in fashion, or not, need not effect our own preference for that philosophy, Gustaf.

I deplore most 'modern' thought, and after all that is a sign of good taste, humanity, and a healthy skepticism.  I suggest you cultivate the same qualities, and you may be able to grow up into a worthy man.

[Gustaf]

there has actually been a large-scale academic revival of Marxism since the fall of the USSR.

Haha! Not in economics, there hasn't. Not that Marx didn't contribute back in the day, but referring to him in modern economics is like referencing Freud in modern psychology (well, worse actually).

Whether or not a particular school of thought is in fashion, or not, need not effect our own preference for that philosophy, Gustaf.

I deplore most 'modern' thought, and after all that is a sign of good taste, humanity, and a healthy skepticism.  I suggest you cultivate the same qualities, and you may be able to grow up into a worthy man.

You forget that I, being less fashionable than you, do not subscribe to that sort of relativism (at least not when it comes to matters like economics).

[Sibboleth]

Marxism in academia never went away (hey, the most respected English language historian pretty much ever - at least within the profession - is a Marxist). Of course... it's questionable (to put it mildly) whether contemporary academic Marxism is something that would have been understood as 'Marxist' (say) fifty years ago, or whether it has much to do with Marxism as usually understood on the internet or (alas) by undergraduates.

I am, of course, not a Marxist in any sense. Just to make that absolutely clear.

[Gustaf]

Marxism in academia never went away (hey, the most respected English language historian pretty much ever - at least within the profession - is a Marxist). Of course... it's questionable (to put it mildly) whether contemporary academic Marxism is something that would have been understood as 'Marxist' (say) fifty years ago, or whether it has much to do with Marxism as usually understood on the internet or (alas) by undergraduates.

I am, of course, not a Marxist in any sense. Just to make that absolutely clear.

Yes, yes, I'm well aware. But I think there is a very big difference between Marxism as a theory to explain politics or sociology or things like that and as an economic theory.

I can't really speak for its viability in those other fields (and given their nature I would guess that it is very hard to define objectively anyway) but I'd be rather confident in saying that Marxism as a theory in economics is almost completely irrelevant. This is not to say that Marx was an idiot or anything, but economics was very nascent back in his day. There was a lot of important stuff they didn't get back then, which means that his framework cannot really be used to analyze the economy today.

[Sibboleth]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware. But I think there is a very big difference between Marxism as a theory to explain politics or sociology or things like that and as an economic theory.

I think there's probably an even bigger difference between Marxism as a theory that explains (on its own) anything, and the better forms of academic Marxism. I actually don't think the former has much (any?) use these days, the latter would be different.