Talking to the right-winger in your life

quote:Originally posted by Coyote:
Today, in fields as "diverse" as literature and economics, experts create insider language that excludes those not inititated into the elite of a given field. Their study no longer contributes to public debate, in fact the public is advised very seriously to "stay out of it".

This obscures knowledge, debate, and I would argue democracy.

To the extent that is true, is it only a recent development? George Bernard Shaw once remarked that the professions are a conspiracy against the general public.

quote:Originally posted by Coyote:
And that is a good point. I try to remind myself constantly that there is nothing new under the sun.

A lot of very intelligent people have been working a lot of hours on a lot of questions for a very long time.

When Isaac Newton published the principia, other intellectuals were shocked that there was a development they could not understand.

The days of people being experts on all subjects are over, and that is because there is a lot that is new under the sun.

quote: Economists wouldn't make that mistake.

Oh, c'mon, Stephen. Most economists are ideologically slanted. If a theory doesn't fit their ideological beliefs, it is dismissed while those that do are trumpeted. You, yourself, will continue to advocate economic models and theories even when all the evidence suggests the opposite results (or worse the results just aren't tabulated).

Two easy and quick examples:

One, to prove that Friedman-ite economic theories are working, i.e. keeping inflation in check (inflation defined primarily as worker's wages, IMV), food and energy are removed from the US measurement of "Core Inflation". Yes, yes, they have many arguments and rationale to justify this, but it is skewed numbers nonetheless and supported by economists.

There are two messages one can derive from this: One is that the government and their economists don't give a shit about the impacts of inflation on citizens or, more likely, 2.2% inflation sounds much nicer to the economic ideologues than 4 or 5 per cent inflation.

A second example: In Wisconsin, the government did a common sense revolution and tightened welfare restrictions that impacted largely single mothers and their children. The economists and politicians who championed the draconian laws heralded the much reduced welfare rates for the state. Poverty advocates say the new regulations have cast many women and children into deeper poverty and, often, homelessness.

So who is right? Well, the politicians and their economists chose not to track people once they leave welfare. So the only statistic that matters is the one that would indicate welfare rolls are lower.

Sorry, Stephen, economics can, and is, twisted and turned to suit any ideological preconception no matter how bent.

Economists are not free of ideology and as Friedman and his many followers have proved, they have no moral qualms about perverting their academic knowledge in the service of their ideological faith.

[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I certainly believe that Stephen contributes greatly to this board. He challenges the prevailing wisdom here, and has in fact changed my mind on a number of issues with his arguments. I appreciate him and his contribution here immensely.

That we disagree on some basic starting point issues bothers me not a whit. That he is snarky on occasion does not bother me either; he is subject to much snark himself. That doesn't mean I won't strenuously respond when I think he is far off the mark, and I hope he does the same with me.

If I have ever given another impression, I hope this corrects that record.

quote: Other than Prof. Gordon, are there any other professional economists who post here with any regularity?

How would we know? Is MikeS an economist?

quote:Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Self-awareness is a moral virtue. Hypocrisy isn't.

If you feel entitled to sit back and pass judgment on the economic ignorance of your inferiors here, you are obliged to debate the issues and explain what error you perceive in their approach.

But you don't; perhaps you can't, but most likely it's just 'intellectual sloth'.

As such, you continuously infuriate, and are seldom (and less and less often) seen to make any useful contribution here. This thread is a perfect example of your dismissive and alienating behaviour.

quote:I hope he does, too. Unfortunately, my point was that Stephen seems to have given up on making any effort whatsoever.

Is it at all possible for you to participate in one of these threads without passing judgment on me?

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
... learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties ...

That's a function of how late you arrive.

quote: which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person

Whoa! Like ever? Do you guys keep a moderator database? Am I in there?

Unfortunately I'm becoming a geezer. Cricks and pains and ornery at them younguns squealing their tires all day.

My favourite economist to read is Paul Krugman at the NYT. He is great at explaining concepts, backing up his point of view, and seems to be fair and intellectually honest.

If SG is 'above us' for lack of a better word, in the field of economics, then he should take the opportunity to educate us and engage in honest debate. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to learn more on the topic.

I have a degree in Mathematics, and have worked in computer sciences for many years. My social circle includes several individual with science degrees who, like me, consider themselves left of center.

If I'm engaged in a debate where mathematical knowledge comes into play, I always try to take the time to explain and simplify concepts. It's usually possible to explain even difficult concepts to most people and web forums provide a good medium for Q&A.

quote:Okay, this is at the point now where I'm going to tell you, LTJ, to pretend that Stephen Gordon doesn't exist - which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person - because you seem to find it impossible to address him or talk about him without attacking him.

...so being smug, patronizing and condescending okay, getting pissed off at smug patronizing and condescending people not okay.

personally I find apologists for global capitalism and corporate imperialism rather tedious so I tend to avoid them myself. I really don't need to here more opinions of this type, I am unable to turn on a radio,t.v. open a newspaper or even walk out the door without being assaulted by a barrage of incessant screams of the dominant ideology...THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. It is sometimes pleasant to believe there might be some sort of sanctuary perhaps that is naive.

engaging in conversation with one of the high priests is like talking to an evangelical christian a pointless and frustrating waste of time.

Inclusiveness might be a nice idea but the reality is including some usually means excluding others

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
So that means that I'd like to see Stephen avoid LTJ too, which means not responding to his posts nor referring to him in the third person.

Fair enough.

Certainly I do. And I think if you set the parameters of a discussion i.e., a thread entitled "Alternatives to Capitalism" or somesuch I bet that it would be respected.

That's kind of how it works, I suppose. We try to tolerate each other and our divisions and try to make something work between us. If this were an explicitly anti-capitalist board by mission I would likely not contribute; been to those sites, man, they make babble look like a tea party.

Capitalism isn't a philosophy.

Who's talking about banning anything? I'm sure N.R.K. wouldn't lose any sleep if you decided to buy some stocks.

Personally, I follow oldgoat's approach. If a person has justice and love in their heart, we have common ground, and we can work with that. I don't spend much time with anyone else. Usually I don't have disputes with people who have fundamentally different outlooks than me--they usually come in mindset. For instance, when discussing social justice or policies with lawyers and mathematicians who see the world in a very different light, but no less compassionately than I do. But with common ground, I find I can explain my point of view no matter what leftist theory they come from.

People like the Mikhail, I find, aren't really interested in changing minds or finding consensus anyway. They're more interested in machismo and posturing, scratching as high as they can on the oak tree to mark their territory. They want to be right, not better. I have to admit, that's an activity I sometimes find all too attractive, but it's ultimately a dead end.