Which school of economic thought do you prefer?

[Beet]

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?

[Gustaf]

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?

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Key to understanding opebo is that his favourite Orwell work is Down and Out in Paris and London. End of discussion.

[ag]

Key to understanding opebo is that his favourite Orwell work is Down and Out in Paris and London. End of discussion.

I love that book as well ) As an ethnographic study )

[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.

[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.

[fezzyfestoon]

Keynesian mostly, but really both are right and wrong.  Neither has the correct response 100% of the time.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.