Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GAROVORKIN

Why Does the Political Right And Left Feel the Need to Demonize Each Other ?

363 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, aceluby said:

The left has had the intellectual high-ground since the right started worshiping supply side economics in the 80s.  Doesn't matter when people actively vote against facts and science.

Most people are not aware that supply-side is bullshit.
It's hard to believe when you know that, but it's true. Even well-educated left-wing people don't always know that it's been absolutely debunked. Most of them oppose it on moral grounds.
Politicians and the media are extremely good at dissembling. In most countries, a cursory look at the public debate would have you believe there is a debate about it - when there is none. That's because what I call "pseudo-economists" go on TV and pretend that they know what they're talking about.
Anyway, preaching to the choir here. What I meant was that the left could seize the intellectual high-ground with the masses, which it really doesn't have right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 7:18 PM, maarsen said:

He forgot inane also. 

True enough .:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Most people are not aware that supply-side is bullshit.
It's hard to believe when you know that, but it's true. Even well-educated left-wing people don't always know that it's been absolutely debunked. Most of them oppose it on moral grounds.
Politicians and the media are extremely good at dissembling. In most countries, a cursory look at the public debate would have you believe there is a debate about it - when there is none. That's because what I call "pseudo-economists" go on TV and pretend that they know what they're talking about.

Here in the US we had about one year in 1984 where growth was very good compared to prior years, which was due to mostly monetary policy. And as I've said before on another thread, the Republican Party and conservatives have milked that baby for all it's worth over 30 years, claiming it was mornin' in 'Murica because of the Reagan tax cuts. That's of course is utter crap, but I think you are right, that even some left leaning people fall for it, since the Republican Party is really good at tooting its own horn. It's a real legend in it's own mind.

But other than what is in popular imagination, part of the turn to conservative ideas was in large part a trends in academia. Robert Lucas and his boys down at U of Chicago had enormous influence, convincing many that economy was more or less self stabilizing with Lucas inspired models with it's mindless walrasianism and Rational Expectations, which pretty much showed that the economy was self stabilizing until it wasn't.

And over the last few years many of the boys and gals down at the U of Chicago's economics department really showed their ass. Casey Mulligan spent years scratching his head trying to figure out why unemployment was high unemployment and writing nonsense columns about it in newspapers. And because he was stuck in his mindless walrasianism which basically says prices clear markets quickly he just couldn't figure it out and had to invent "structural stories" ie the ACA is the problem! No wait it's Dodd-Frank! No, it's unemployment benefits! The short answer to Mulligan's nonsense along with the rest of U of Chicago is that the labor market, along with other markets were in disequilibrium and it can take quite awhile before prices adjust to equalibriate demand and supply, if it ever truly does.

And then of course the EMH of his U of Chicago colleague Fama I think is come into disrepute among many academics that might have bought into it before the GFC. Of course conservatives mostly like EMH, except of course when the don't like the guy who is president, and do a bit o' conservative asset mispricing concern trolling and of course when they are trying to blame poor minorities for causing financial crises. 

Overall, I think much of academia is starting to veer to the left, in large part, to recent experiences and because of recognition that supply side nonsense never was able to deliver it's promises and has contributed to growing wealth inequality. The question of course is whether any of that will filter down to the broader public. Conservatives are very good at getting their horseshit believed. And in the US, it would seem that all you have to do is convince a lot of people that because you're a successful business guy, or maybe you just played on TV, you actually know what in the hell you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Overall, I think much of academia is starting to veer to the left, in large part, to recent experiences and because of recognition that supply side nonsense never was able to deliver it's promises and has contributed to growing wealth inequality. The question of course is whether any of that will filter down to the broader public.

I really wonder about that too.
It's come to a point that when a politician starts running on a Keynesian platform while facing supply-siders the Keynesian is labeled as "far-left" and ridiculed for his poor grasp of economics.

F*** it's French politics but Mélenchon actually built his entire program with the help of economists like Hoang-Ngoc or Généreux who are actually quite solid. He even got a half-assed support by Piketty when it came to choosing between Keynesian Mélenchon and neo-liberal Macron.
A hundred economists even supported Mélenchon's program including big shots like Ha-Joon Chang from Cambridge.
But none of that mattered. Mélenchon was still mocked and ridiculed, his program described as "unrealistic" or "utopian" at best, and completely nonsensical at worse. Whenever I discuss economics with random people (i.e. not fellow leftists), Mélenchon is an object of scorn and mockery. Outside from his supporters, it seems no one can believe that his economic program was actually the best by far. Macron and Fillon were classic neo-liberal supply siders, Le Pen proposed to leave the euro and devaluate the franc. Mélenchon -and Hamon, I guess- was the one who actually knew what he was talking about. But try to point that out to a random person and you get a smirk.

It pisses me off. F***ing bullshit neo-liberal propaganda. And then someone wonders why the left "demonizes" the right. Bloody squawking popinjays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I really wonder about that too.
It's come to a point that when a politician starts running on a Keynesian platform while facing supply-siders the Keynesian is labeled as "far-left" and ridiculed for his poor grasp of economics.

F*** it's French politics but Mélenchon actually built his entire program with the help of economists like Hoang-Ngoc or Généreux who are actually quite solid. He even got a half-assed support by Piketty when it came to choosing between Keynesian Mélenchon and neo-liberal Macron.
A hundred economists even supported Mélenchon's program including big shots like Ha-Joon Chang from Cambridge.
But none of that mattered. Mélenchon was still mocked and ridiculed, his program described as "unrealistic" or "utopian" at best, and completely nonsensical at worse. Whenever I discuss economics with random people (i.e. not fellow leftists), Mélenchon is an object of scorn and mockery. Outside from his supporters, it seems no one can believe that his economic program was actually the best by far. Macron and Fillon were classic neo-liberal supply siders, Le Pen proposed to leave the euro and devaluate the franc. Mélenchon -and Hamon, I guess- was the one who actually knew what he was talking about. But try to point that out to a random person and you get a smirk.

It pisses me off. F***ing bullshit neo-liberal propaganda. And then someone wonders why the left "demonizes" the right. Bloody squawking popinjays...

lol, why does this sound familiar to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I really wonder about that too.
It's come to a point that when a politician starts running on a Keynesian platform while facing supply-siders the Keynesian is labeled as "far-left" and ridiculed for his poor grasp of economics.

F*** it's French politics but Mélenchon actually built his entire program with the help of economists like Hoang-Ngoc or Généreux who are actually quite solid. He even got a half-assed support by Piketty when it came to choosing between Keynesian Mélenchon and neo-liberal Macron.
A hundred economists even supported Mélenchon's program including big shots like Ha-Joon Chang from Cambridge.
But none of that mattered. Mélenchon was still mocked and ridiculed, his program described as "unrealistic" or "utopian" at best, and completely nonsensical at worse. Whenever I discuss economics with random people (i.e. not fellow leftists), Mélenchon is an object of scorn and mockery. Outside from his supporters, it seems no one can believe that his economic program was actually the best by far. Macron and Fillon were classic neo-liberal supply siders, Le Pen proposed to leave the euro and devaluate the franc. Mélenchon -and Hamon, I guess- was the one who actually knew what he was talking about. But try to point that out to a random person and you get a smirk.

It pisses me off. F***ing bullshit neo-liberal propaganda. And then someone wonders why the left "demonizes" the right. Bloody squawking popinjays...

Here in the US even people that are fairly centrist are considered the "far left". Like certain people that more or less support Dodd Frank for instance. I don't think people like Robert Schiller or Richard Thaler are part of "far left", instead they just are guys that have undermined the EMH idea.

During the GFC things got so crazy that even your run of the mill monetarist became part of the "far left", even though most of them are right of center.

In the US, most of us might as well identify as dirty liberals, since you know it's extremely difficult to adhere to the true conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Spockydog said:

The 'ignore user' function is a good place to start. Added him/her weeks ago. 

I find that trying to please everyone is an exercise in futility.  

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

46 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah I don't think you understand what the ignore function does.

Yes , I know exactly how the ignore feature works .  Lots of websites have them  , Ive never bothered to make use them. 

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, aceluby said:

The left has had the intellectual high-ground since the right started worshiping supply side economics in the 80s.  Doesn't matter when people actively vote against facts and science.

To take this idea further:

As a general rule, is it fair to say that the left-wing is concerned about fixing global warming while the right wing denies its existence, or at least, denies that it is a priority to be solved before economics?

I hate this attitude that global warming can wait. We humans make the rules of our markets, and we can make them what we like. The same does not apply to our ecosystems and planet.

Edited by Yukle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Yukle said:

As a general rule, is it fair to say that the left-wing is concerned about fixing global warming while the right wing denies its existence, or at least, denies that it is a priority to be solved before economics?

I hate this attitude that global warming can wait. We humans make the rules of our markets, and we can make them what we like. The same does not apply to our ecosystems and planet.

I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions.
It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. With a fascinating question to answer: are individual freedoms still paramount when they jeopardize the survival of our entire species? What kind of global society do we really want to build?
The entire left-right paradigm hinges on that kind of question. And I know I tend to repeat myself, but I just can't see how humans can keep the level of individual freedoms we have today in the long-term. The consequences of economic liberty alone are reason enough to seriously reconsider what an individual's fundamental rights should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions.
It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. With a fascinating question to answer: are individual freedoms still paramount when they jeopardize the survival of our entire species? What kind of global society do we really want to build?
The entire left-right paradigm hinges on that kind of question. And I know I tend to repeat myself, but I just can't see how humans can keep the level of individual freedoms we have today in the long-term. The consequences of economic liberty alone are reason enough to seriously reconsider what an individual's fundamental rights should be.

Where do you draw that line ? The big problem with  limiting or restricting  individual  freedoms and Liberties is that it becomes a  slippery slope that leads us all to Oceana .  

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has ever been a politician successfully sued for anything like that? One does not have to go for difficult to prove non-local effects like climate change. There are far more obvious things like (in Germany) the failed Berlin Airport, the Stuttgart Train station, billions to save corrupt bankers (or even worse, bad financial speculations by the official responsible for the finance of cities or local districts) and I don't think anyone was ever held legally responsible. It was rarely tried and if then it usually was not successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Where do you draw that line ? The big problem with  limiting or restricting  individual  freedoms and Liberties is that it becomes a  slippery slope that leads us all to Oceana .  

The "slippery slope" argument is lazy and meaningless half the time.
The line isn't easy to draw but if your individual freedom affects thousands of other individuals in a negative way then it might be a good idea for society to have a debate about it.
Lastly, I didn't say I necessarily welcome the evolution that I foresee. My statement was matter of fact. I'm content to live in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions.
It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility.

If I'm still around when global warming gets real bad, I'm going to the Koch Brothers house, so I can sit in their air conditioning and drink up all their water. And I'm inviting everyone to come with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The "slippery slope" argument is lazy and meaningless half the time.
The line isn't easy to draw but if your individual freedom affects thousands of other individuals in a negative way then it might be a good idea for society to have a debate about it.
Lastly, I didn't say I necessarily welcome the evolution that I foresee. My statement was matter of fact. I'm content to live in this day and age.

So it's not lazy and has  meaningless  the other half of the time ? Hm, have to think about have one a bit. :D

Yes , It is conceivable that in the distant  future, we may end up having less freedoms for reasons beyond our control  and that is not a pleasant possibility to contemplate .:(

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I'm still around when global warming gets real bad, I'm going to the Koch Brothers house, so I can sit in their air conditioning and drink up all their water. And I'm inviting everyone to come with me.

We should be doing this RIGHT NOW.  And not only with those two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I'm still around when global warming gets real bad, I'm going to the Koch Brothers house, so I can sit in their air conditioning and drink up all their water. And I'm inviting everyone to come with me.

How bad could it get? Ever hear of the Permian mass extinction even't ? It  Happened about 250 million years ago  It was far worse then then the one that took out the Dinosaurs .  In the Permian event 90 percent of everything  that lived on Earth died.  

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

We should be doing this RIGHT NOW.  And not only with those two.

That will do nothing to forestall global warming .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

That will do nothing to forestall global warming .

Well, that's the attitude of someone who thinks being sodomized, starved and denied water by his betters is great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0