Which school of economic thought do you prefer?

[Storebought]

The above posts happens to stand as one of the most thorough destructions of an "intellectual" position I've ever seen here on AF.

I have nothing to add to that, but I will comment that opebo's desire to see the poor violently "rise up" against their masters, strikes me as yet another manifestation of his to see poor people, the rest of humanity, really, to destroy themselves en masse for the sake of his own amusement.

[Storebought]

The above posts happens to stand as one of the most thorough destructions of an "intellectual" position I've ever seen here on AF.

I have nothing to add to that, but I will comment that opebo's desire to see the poor violently "rise up" against their masters, strikes me as yet another manifestation of his to see poor people, the rest of humanity, really, to destroy themselves en masse for the sake of his own amusement.

Alas, it's not that simple ) Firstly, there were two very distinct "intellectual" positions involved (apart from mine, of course ) ). And, secondly, it wasn't very thorough - to do it thorougly, I'd need more time than I actually have. Finally, it's not fair - I am an econ prof. Though I haven't said anything that I believe to be wrong, I did leave gaps in arguments, through which any well-trained colleague (including myself) could easily drive a tank.

But that's the issue: To him, it's all an amusement. It's just a way to pass the time, and not to be taken at all seriously, except by the ones who do.

[Storebought]

The above posts happens to stand as one of the most thorough destructions of an "intellectual" position I've ever seen here on AF.

I have nothing to add to that, but I will comment that opebo's desire to see the poor violently "rise up" against their masters, strikes me as yet another manifestation of his to see poor people, the rest of humanity, really, to destroy themselves en masse for the sake of his own amusement.

Here ag is in his own domain. Well, not quite, but close enough to it. As for opebo, for anyone who has been on the forum as long as any those that participated in this thread, should have learned not to take opebo seriously a long, long time ago.

His politics are caricatures, but his economics are taken quite seriously here. If it takes a professional to point out the Unsinn of his arguments, even if just casually, then more power to the professor.

[Storebought]

The above posts happens to stand as one of the most thorough destructions of an "intellectual" position I've ever seen here on AF.

I have nothing to add to that, but I will comment that opebo's desire to see the poor violently "rise up" against their masters, strikes me as yet another manifestation of his to see poor people, the rest of humanity, really, to destroy themselves en masse for the sake of his own amusement.

Here ag is in his own domain. Well, not quite, but close enough to it. As for opebo, for anyone who has been on the forum as long as any those that participated in this thread, should have learned not to take opebo seriously a long, long time ago.

His politics are caricatures **, but his economics are taken quite seriously here. If it takes a professional to point out the Unsinn of his arguments, even if just casually, then more power to the professor.

**of an indwelling inhumanity, imho

Well, the professor has accused him of having dishonest politics, and the proof has been "I believe myself to be on solid ground." Basically, this discussion is like a paper (about individual psychology more than an intellectual position) with a lot of references in the back, except the references all exist in other posters' heads. I've engaged with opebo quite a bit on this board, but don't get what is being referred to. His 'economics' seem to consist of nothing but caricatured polemics that are closely tied, if not identical, to his politics. Can you provide some example of opebo's rich-favoring, serious economics?

I don't think I've ever said he favors the "rich." He maintains a pose of favoring an "aristocracy," which would be entirely within character of someone who despises the rich -- and the poor, for that matter, who in his creation exist to fulfill the needs, not of capital, but for his own pleasure. What their stand in society is could really be of little concern to him, except that they should immediately stop working (presumably in taxable wage employment) to cause the financial destruction one type of parasitic money class whose lifestyle he detests. Basically, poor people as an breakable expendable tool to make a world more comfortable for him.

[Storebought]

His politics are caricatures **,

**of an indwelling inhumanity, imho

Perhaps so, but that 'inhumanity' is much closer to the actual nature of humanity than anything you may imagine in your soft head.

You honestly think that you are the only person to have figured any of this out? Really?

My whole outlook is based on the fact that humanity are scum, and individuals are born rotten until brought up to respect, as far as possible, the right of other people to exist. There's really no need to dwell on something so obvious -- I can't see how that makes me 'softheaded'. Now, if you said 'oblivious' ... then you would have had a real argument. I truly don't care how others live so long as they don't kill or steal others' property.

[Storebought]

To answer the question: Capitalist, of course. I used to favor monetary policy to encourage stable prices (Monetarism) over full employment, but that's proving to be a fiction.

[Storebought]

But why on earth do you favor Capitalism?

Because I don't favor Peasantry, which plagued vast swathes of the US before private and federal capital reached them.

edit: If you take offense at that line I can remove it.