Which school of economic thought do you prefer?

[opebo]

also, opebo would probably call himself a Keynesian.

If we are to have the brutality of capitalism, Keynesianism is the best way to manage it.  But I'm also somewhat Marxist.  

However I'm skeptical that there is any difference between 'economic thought' and political preference.

[opebo]

However I'm skeptical that there is any difference between 'economic thought' and political preference.

That's because you don't really bother to learn economics

Actually no, the skepticism is the reason I didn't bother to learn economics.  I don't know much about religion either.

[opebo]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics

What's with the baseless, feeble insults, ag?  And all the smilies?  I suppose they were funny for a while, but are you going to continue it forever?

[opebo]

...Whereas, were I to accept Libertas's point of view, I'd have to agree w/ you on that without reservation. If anything, that was almost an appreciation of your point of view

My views aren't based on human behavior being unpredictable, ag, though of course I am skeptical of such prediction.

You seem strangely cheerful - what's up? 

[opebo]

...To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. ...

 Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Ok, firstly, everyone knows people tend to overbid at auctions.  It is literally common knowledge - it is in hollywood films, little children know about it.  How could you not know this?

And secondly, no one has disputed the notion that human behavior is predictable.

[opebo]

Your first point might be true about the movies, but not true in practice

No, my point was that people know that it is commonplace to overbid at auctions.   I never mentioned anything about 'rules changes'.  I was talking about actual auctions as they exist in practice.

Your second point is, likewise, not true: Libertas did argue that human behavior is not predictable ) Now, you were brought into that discussion only to make the point that if Libertas were right in his claim, I would have fully agreed w/ you in your conclusion ))

Oh I see.  I was considering my conversation with you, not your conversation with Libertas.  My conclusion regarding economics was based more on a skepticism about the underlying motivations behind it than the predictability of behavior.   

[opebo]

And I was talking about the actual auctions that exist in practice There are just many types of these. In fact, I believe that the auctions that you have in mind (most likely you are thinking about the ascending bid English auction) do not result in the particular kind of overbidding I've been talking about )

Well we're talking at cross purposes, then. 

I was thinking of the sort of auction one saw in The Magic Christian.

[opebo]

...b) maintain an utterly ridiculous assumption that economics has anything to say about morals )

Would you say that your capitalist economics takes preferences (morals) as assumed, and only studies behaviors related to the pursuit of same?

[opebo]

...In particular, I could argue that if an individual, though proclaiming a certain objective, advocates policies at odds with the same, that individual is lying about his/her objectives (this is why I don't believe in your leftism: you habitually advocate policies that would entrench the aristocratic wealth and screw the poor).

We've all read this propaganda before, ag.  Don't you think this line is getting a bit tired after being asserted strenuously by academia and media for generations, considering the actual condition of the populace?

[opebo]

We've all read this propaganda before, ag.  Don't you think this line is getting a bit tired after being asserted strenuously by academia and media for generations, considering the actual condition of the populace?

I don't see what does the condition of the populace have to do w/ anything I've said )

I only mention the condition of the populace as you suggest that their condition would be better under some other policies than those which I have advocated:

...you habitually advocate policies that would entrench the aristocratic wealth and screw the poor.

We've all read this propaganda before, ag.  Don't you think this line is getting a bit tired after being asserted strenuously by academia and media for generations, considering the actual condition of the populace?

What I do see is that you consistently advocate policies carefully designed to maximize monopoly rents extracted by the rich from the poor.

I do see your point, however as I'm sure you realize not everyone agrees that those policies accomplish what you believe they accomplish.  Besides, while I mostly advocate a kind of Fabianism, I have also stated that the course of slaughtering their oppressors is a reasonable one for the poor (certainly the most satisfying and 'just'), and that certainly wouldn't maximize anything for the rich as they'd be dead. 

[opebo]

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.

In point of fact ag said nothing, Storebought, beyond 'your economic ideas are bad for poor people'.  That's all he said.  If that constitutes a 'thorough destruction' of a position, then you're quite right.

In practice all we can ever do in these posts is state our preferences.  The idea that any 'proof' of political positions is possible is a bit silly.

ag is just a adolescent Rand-fan grown up, and having learned to drone on until no one can bear to read the drivel, and having published (supposedly), he is taken seriously.  But its the same fantasy worked up into a propaganda.  It happens to suit your preferences though, so maybe you can enjoy it.

[opebo]

He wants a society where the rich can literally buy poor people and where the power lies in the hands of those borne into the upper classes. (i.e. Thailand)

I mean, if he thought the "Good Place" was a country like Sweden his leftism would be a little more credible.

The poor cannot be bought in Thailand any more or less than in the US - in both countries they are absolute slaves.  This is the nature of capitalism.  The only difference is that in Thailand prostitution is tolerated.  Its really a minor difference.

If I were a worker within a society then I would prefer Sweden, but I'm a privileged sex tourist.  I don't know why you expect there to be any correlation between one's political positions and one's actions - after all we all must live in the system within which we find ourselves, and we have no control over it.  It seems to me perfectly consistent that one could be a titan of industry and a Marxist - after all, hypocrisy is a necessary of adult social life, and failing to understand that is, well, naive and juvenile.

[opebo]

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.

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?

Beet, thanks for pointing out that ag has in fact not bothered to present any 'arguments'.  He and I have just, as everyone does here, mentioned their preferences and stated we don't like the other fellows.  He has suggested obliquely that my economic preferences would harm the poor and entrench inherited wealth - this is an age old argument of the right.  They believe competition, free trade, 'the market', etc., leads to some kind of well being for workers, and restraint of any of these owner-powers by the State, unions, tariffs, minimum wages, etc., will cause workers to be worse off somehow.  This is all very tired propaganda we've all heard a million times.

I don't bother much about economics as I think it is entirely subsidiary to politics, but I do think that given the horrible capitalist system we're apparently stuck with, the endless recessions we find ourselves in - and the way we get out of them - does seem to offer a good deal of practical evidence in favor of Keynes.  And the severe decline in working class incomes and enormous increase of inequality since ag's policies have been de rigueur seems to militate against them as a panacea for the working class.

Lastly, regarding political 'dishonesty' - I've never claimed to be consistent or hidden the two conflicting sides of my preferences, so I don't see how I can be accused of dishonesty.

[opebo]

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?

Certainly not - it is obvious to anyone.  However you did state that I evinced an 'indwelling inhumanity', as if this were an interesting, salient, remarkable, or perhaps even unique aspect of my character.  If you turn around and say everyone's an ass, calling me one doesn't mean much, does it?

But why on earth do you favor Capitalism?

[opebo]

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.

Hah, no I'm rather flattered by it.