Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away


Guest

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

According to CNN (so let's wait a few hours for confirmation from a real news outlet) the shooter of the day is a member of the Saudi military. I... don't know if I should be happy about that. Can someone tell me? Oh forget it, I'll just turn on CNN and agree with the talking head that isn't a Klan member.

A Saudi?

Oh, crap, looks like we’re invading Iran then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

A Saudi?

Oh, crap, looks like we’re invading Iran then.

You can never act too hastily when spreading freedumb is involved.

Also, now I’m going to have to go back and see where I crossed my wires with Smith. I know I got what I posted from an Intro to Political Theory course, but it seems like that came from a different long dead political philosopher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can never act too hastily when spreading freedumb is involved.

Also, now I’m going to have to go back and see where I crossed my wires with Smith. I know I got what I posted from an Intro to Political Theory course, but it seems like that came from a different long dead political philosopher.


No, you may well have, he’s very often taught that way, especially by people who just read the bullet point renditions aimed at glorifying western capitalism. It’s absolutely the most commonly understood version of Smith going around, and as mentioned that began even in his lifetime.

It’s just incredibly wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the conflation of rightwing economic aspirations and evolutionary theory is more herb spencer, no? 'survival of the fittest' is his coinage, as i recall it.

Ah, you’re right in that I was going more big picture rather than Ty’s specific terminology. I think Schumpeter is probably the name that first comes to mind for me in terms of that angle, but I barely remember anything I actually read from him, just the association. Spencer I mostly remember reading about who he foothilled for...and didn’t he also apply Darwinism to language study, literature, etc? I think I remember Chomsky talking about that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Ah, you’re right in that I was going more big picture rather than Ty’s specific terminology. I think Schumpeter is probably the name that first comes to mind for me in terms of that angle, but I barely remember anything I actually read from him, just the association. Spencer I mostly remember reading about who he foothilled for...and didn’t he also apply Darwinism to language study, literature, etc? I think I remember Chomsky talking about that.

 

 

Is that where "Ebonics" comes from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

perhaps the contrary. in the theory of moral sentiments, smith sounds like a bloody commie:

Quote

 

The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. 

 

IV.I.10 (emphasis added). there is a small flaw with this axoim to the extent it is completely false, when measured in the laboratory of history.

the earlier wealth of nations uses the term in a fairly limited sense, regarding foreign v. domestic industry:

Quote

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

IV.2.9 (emphasis added).  the distinction between not intending to promote the public interest vs. directing capital toward the domestic industry appears to be without difference and is accordingly merely tautological.  i marvel that anyone thinks this metaphor--which lacks any evidentiary rigor and is simply asserted--is in any way persuasive.  it is therefore a postulate of a cult, a theology established as the default religion of numbnuts in both major US parties.

Most of those quotes seem like verbose speculations. Like a lot of (all?) economics and ideology it's someone who thinks they had a great idea about the world and presents it as truth without having applied one bit of the scientific method to it to see if it really is true. Seems like his only insight really was predicting the dire consequences of people cherry-picking the bits of his work that advantage the already rich and powerful. Probably not a great deal unlike Stalin cherry picking the bits of Marx's works that advantaged him and his inner circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Is that where "Ebonics" comes from?

As far as I know Ebonics is a few generations later, but may well have been built on Spencer’s work. I don’t remember that much about him, and I’m not even 100% sure he’s the one I think Chomsky addressed. 
 

Just checked and yeah, he addresses him and Kropotkin‘s response. I actually think I read Spencer’s work a lot more in Psych than economics now that I’m thinking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone wondering about the honesty of these latest employment figures?  The last time, wasn't it, it turned out the WH had deliberately lied and there hadn't been anywhere near the number of jobs created that they claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember how the Republican defense of Trump had been starting to settle on "Trump wasn’t trying to investigate the Bidens, he just really cares about corruption and wanted to root it out in Ukraine. It’s pure coincidence that the Bidens were caught up in that, the real scandal is how corrupt the Bidens are!"

Yeah, that defense was always bullshit, (since Trump’s own transcript mentions Crowdstrike, the company that was hosting DNC services, and which right-wing conspiracy theories and Trump himself claim had a server that they hid from the FBI and moved to Ukraine [in actuality Cloudstrike is a cloud based service and didn’t have a server there to move and hide]) but Rudy Giuliani just officially blew it up by outright admitting that they were investigating Biden. On Twitter, because of course.

Link:

Quote

The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a major obstacle...

...to the US assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms.

The American people will learn that Biden & other Obama administration officials, contributed to the increased level of corruption in Ukraine between 2014 to 2016.

This evidence will all be released very soon.


Anyone want to start an over/under on how long it takes the GOP to move the goalposts again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikki Hayley, what a tool.

Dylan Roofe hijacked the CSA flag.It must have been as an expression of what evidently must be purely only his personal racism, for, of course That Flag has never been a symbol of hatred and favor of white supremacy and the enslavement of non-white people evah.  Because until he was found with those flags they were only expressions of heritage.  Sob, sob, sob, this is so sad, so tragic, what has been done to this noble symbol -- and don't forget the northern media aided and abetted!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nikki-haley-dylann-roof-confederate-flag_n_5dea8f7fe4b0913e6f8fa2f6

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Anyone wondering about the honesty of these latest employment figures?  The last time, wasn't it, it turned out the WH had deliberately lied and there hadn't been anywhere near the number of jobs created that they claimed.

I believe you're referencing Trump's conflation of the numbers. He double counted a lot of things to juice the numbers, but I believe the official report was still accurate. There are a number of factors that caused the high jobs rates, I believe the biggest is the ending of a few large strikes, but I don't think there's any reason to believe these numbers are fake. Keep in mind job creation has been slower in 2019 than in 2018, and my understanding is that growth has tapered off too. Don't forget, outside of the stock market, the indicators for the economy were better under the last few years of Obama than the first few years of Trump, and that's even when you factor in the tax cuts juicing the economy. Also of note, the stock market is a bad indicator of the economy writ large. I forget the exact numbers, but an overwhelmingly large share of the market is owned by like 20% of the population. Other indicators suggest average Americans are doing pretty poorly with something like half of the households in this country could not withstand an unexpected $500 bill. 

Basically the economy has been more or less stable over the last several years without a significant year to year change as far as I'm aware of. The only difference now is that a Republican is in office, so what once went from being a terrible economy now is the best ever despite little actual change. Because, ya know, Republicans are all about that good faith life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paladin of Ice said:

but Rudy Giuliani just officially blew it up by outright admitting that they were investigating Biden. On Twitter, because of course.

Oh Rudy, the gift that keeps on giving.

Is he going to go down as the worst personal lawyer ever? 

Quote

Anyone want to start an over/under on how long it takes the GOP to move the goalposts again?

Impossible bet to execute as the goal posts change with each letter I type. Literally. 

Taking bets on this is even more absurd than the 5,000 to 1 odds that Luis Suarez, back in 2014, would bite Messi and trigger a zombie apocalypse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, nah said:

I'm still feeling Andrew Yang, but the idea of a Sanders/Cortez ticket makes me salivate.

I probably could have used less gross language to describe my feelings there...

She's too young and is thus ineligible. 

Seriously though, can we stop crowning people with very little experience? We're seeing the ramifications of not doing so every damn day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would, for one. She's not exactly... good at politics.

I mean neither is Sanders, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

VP should be from a swing state, not from the Senate, and utterly inoffensive. A painted piece of wood would actually be my pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, nah said:

Ok, now imagine her debating Mike Pence.

I say this as a friend and ally. Please understand that I have no desire to destroy or otherwise undermine your enthusiasm for progressive politics. But if you cannot understand why a young, energetic, intelligent, and verbose woman would be an absolutely horrible choice to sit across from Pence and his tall-glass-of-Xanex rote lies then you really should get to know more Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

She's too young and is thus ineligible. 

Seriously though, can we stop crowning people with very little experience? We're seeing the ramifications of not doing so every damn day.

Yes! Please!   And keep in mind, I am very admiring of AOC, but no, she can't be a VP candidate, and not only because she's too young according to what age requirement is in place to be POTUS, in case POTUS croaks or is incapacitated by a heart attack, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sologdin said:

IV.I.10 (emphasis added). there is a small flaw with this axoim to the extent it is completely false, when measured in the laboratory of history. 

He wasn't wrong if you restrict the statement to a strict interpretation of "the necessaries of life" which are air, water, food and protection from the elements. Smith almost certainly meant food first and foremost and with respect to it, he is correct: no matter how rich a capitalist is, he can only eat so much without becoming ill. He didn't foresee that there would one day be a society where practically everyone has food and thus it no longer plays such a central role.

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Most of those quotes seem like verbose speculations. Like a lot of (all?) economics and ideology it's someone who thinks they had a great idea about the world and presents it as truth without having applied one bit of the scientific method to it to see if it really is true.

Smith lived in the 18th century. The idea of applying the scientific method to social sciences didn't become popular until the 19th and the data, processing power and algorithms to do this to an extent which allows one to make predictions which are correct more than 99% of the time are still not there today (in the 21st). Presenting ideas is basically all he could do.

1 hour ago, nah said:

To be vise president? Says who?

Says the Twelfth Amendment. The eligibility requirements for being President and Vice-President are the same and the minimum age is 35 years old. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is only 30 so she is not eligible this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, nah said:

And who in the DNC is going to raise that challenge if he gets the nomination? And if Trump sued, do you really think the SCOTUS would take that case during the campaign? Not this court, nooo fucking way. I think they should go for it, and if they win and there's a challenge I think they should pull an Andrew Jackson and tell the Court to go fuck itself.

They would take the case in a heartbeat and immediately obliterate it. It would make your head spin how fast Roberts threw down the gauntlet to get that challenge taken care of. Now if it were a Republican? Sure, that'd probably be somehow justified. But a democrat doing it? Boom goes the dynamite. 

Mostly though, why the fuck do that? It's such a ridiculous own goal. You know who dislikes AOC the most? Rust belt asshats, who see her as a young, minority woman who has the gall to actually want to represent the country instead of be a maid somewhere. The people who she'll get motivated are the ones who are in California, New York, Washington...places that liberals are already winning. She's a woman, so she won't get out the male vote, and she's a minority so she won't get out the white vote - so all of a sudden you've lost a ton of those people, all for what - because you like her

Seriously, this is why Republicans can nominate the most shitty things imaginable for multiple generations straight and win, and the only way Democrats win is by getting handsome younger men with a lot of accomplishments and charisma, and half of those on the backs of recessions. STOP SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT ALREADY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...