The Politics Megathread

[Mielly]

@wowfucktron
>waifushitter desperately spamming the same old meme
You realize "t." isn't an argument right ?
@Tamerlane
Basic Economics isn't used to teach economics in any university anywhere in the world, stop lying. Thomas Sowell has given ample proof of his complete and utter disinterest in accurately modeling the workings of real-life economics. He's absolutely fine getting paid fat fees spouting whatever his clients want him too, as illustrated by his constant and ridiculous climate change denialism. Let's keep a modicum of honesty, and not try to make a Samuelson out of Sowell. (Samuelson being the author of one of the most used econ textbooks).
@readingsit
> when i want to live to eat another day i save up my money so when i hear concepts from Keynesian economics
Do you find the idea of vaccines idiotic ? Do you think an entire body behaves like a single cell ? Macro-economics do not function like an individual, neither do companies and banks. Trying to understand large entities by comparing them to you is useless.
> i go to people who are able to explain things in ways I think makes sense
Okay so you have absolutely no interest in any scientific knowledge, and are only motivated by your confirmation bias. You indeed search advice based on what you want to hear, so let's end this. Just never try to act as if you have any training in economics again.

 

[bigtiddyoneesan]

@Mielly
I think others would be more willing to exchange views with you if you didn't lace every sentence of yours with enough spite to be the protagonist of some economics-themed revenge shounen. Reading comments like these is like watching someone constantly farting while climbing a ladder, only for an updraft to kindly carry their farts along with them so they can keep inhaling.

 

[readingsit]

@bigtiddyoneesan
well said

@Mielly

Do you find the idea of vaccines idiotic?

no. because it was explained to me that the body is able to fight the 'dummy virus' inside a vaccine so that it has a better chance at fighting the real thing. in other words somone explained somthing to me in a way that makes sense.

Okay so you have absolutely no interest in any scientific knowledge

when i was younger and heard that quantum computing would bring to an end passwords as we know it. i didnt believe them since that doesnt make sense. then as i looked it up, and what did i find? an explanation that said a quantum computer doesnt hold 0's or 1's it hold 0's and 1's at the same time! and since everything a computer does, including passwords, is a series of 0's and 1's then a computer that is able to merge 0's and 1's to compute can crack a password in seconds.
i asked for them to

explain things in ways I think makes sense

and they did.

i am not rejecting scientific knowledge when i say that Keynesian economics does not make sense. because i do not understand how

1. the government inflating the dollar via mass printing to spend on who cares what
or
2. by stealing peoples cash via excessive taxation to use on who cares what

leads to benefits in the economy.

an inflated currency doesnt matter to the rich since they still have plenty of it but to the poor who had little they now have littler
and as for taxation why does the government spending benefit the economy but citizens spending does not? doesnt cutting taxes result in the same thing? only this time people dont feel like their being stolen from.

and dont give me any nonsense like 'the government will spend it better' because there is countless stories such as the famous '$1.5 million walking lizards on a treadmill' debacle

 

[Kaldrak]

@Mielly Don't mind wowfucktron, he's the living embodiment of Schrödinger's douchebag.

Most of the people here don't seem to want to discuss or debate political theory or ideology, I don't think. They just want to attack their perceived political enemies and 'fight' in the culture wars.

 

[EzWeeb]

@Kaldrak seething

 

[wowfucktron]

@kaldrak

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Kaldrak]

I don't recall exempting myself from my description, lol.

 

[EzWeeb]

MySpace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMDchwbOvvY

 

[Teddy]

I hope those lizards got some good exercise. Also they spent $1.5mil on that but only $200,000 for book clubs for Pakistani and Afghan kids.

Edit: decimal

 

[Kaldrak]

@EzWeeb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HNhe9AEL3o

 

[Falador]

Lmao, I come here every now and then to enjoy the salt and middle school tier spite and attacks.
Spergs gonna sperg I guess.

 

[Tamerlane]

Sowell is a complete idiot who hasn't ever published anything significant from a scientific standpoint. He's just a lazy propagandist and an all-around paid clown who will happily reverse facts and rewrite history to suit his dumb mouthpiece. There's a reason this piece of trash never accepted any serious peer discussion. Hayek, although obsolete, had a few good leads and was decent for his time.

From what I can tell, Sowell is on of the most cited black economist ever, and that, between his over two dozen books and countless essays, he's definitely qualified to say he's published significant economic theory. Not to mention his numerous accolades and honors, including the National Humanities Medal. If this is a man who isn't considered to be influential in his field, then there are a damned few that meet your criteria.

Meanwhile Keen, among others like Roubini, accurately modeled, predicted and explained the 2008 financial crisis as early as 2005, while Sowell . As someone with a scientific academic background I prefer to judge scientists on the merit of their theory, but it seems that just isn't your main criteria.

From what I can tell, Sowell believed that the government quotas lead to subprime mortgages that lead to the 2008 financial crisis, and most interviews or writings from that time period express that view. I have difficulty of finding any writings from before that period in time indicating that it was a sudden revelation, but if he was ignorant before hand, I would most likely hypothesize that to hold individual economists responsible for not being aware of the actions of the entire market or to know about what could or would cause a crash at any given time is like expecting an evolutionary biologist to predict the rise of corona virus. It's a very wide field and even the most prominent economists probably aren't aware of what is happening in this part or that which could cause a crash until after the fact.

Also, you say you judge Sowell by merit of his theory, but you haven't referenced his theory or shortcomings in his school of economics in any real way aside from little jabs at certain ideas he's had and then brushed him off more or less, which seems more like you're trying to handwave his ability to contribute to his field than actually engage with his economic ideas.

He's absolutely fine getting paid fat fees spouting whatever his clients want him too, as illustrated by his constant and ridiculous climate change denialism.

From what I can gather, from his own statements and his own writings, Thomas Sowell isn't denying climate change but believes that between alarmist predictions like those of Al Gore in the 90s which seek to scare and mislead the public more than actually educate them, leading to an obfuscation of misinformation and confusion about what can be done about climate change, if anything can even be done at all. I think you've fallen into a strawman that lacks the nuance of his beliefs, which largely are more focused on criticizing the the hyperbole of climate change and not the actually engaging in the scientific debate itself or looking to confirm their own beliefs instead of falsify them.

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM
https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/climate-change-deniers-thomas-sowell/

Let's keep a modicum of honesty, and not try to make a Samuelson out of Sowell.

You seem to be not trying to debunk any of Thomas Sowell's economic claims, and more seem to be trying to discredit him outright through a constantly invective tone that doesn't really address his significant positions or principles but tertiary concerns. Even then, most of the arguments seem to be misrepresenting his beliefs.

@Mielly

I try to engage with people in good faith more or less, or to attack ideas.

My exception is 2spirit because she's very much shown that she doesn't care about honest debate or exploring ideas, but to cling to her narrative

@Kaldrak

 

[readingsit]

@Kaldrak

don't seem to want to discuss or debate political theory or ideology

i mean the whole reason i joined the topic in the first place was because i looked at the page at the time and a page before it and saw alot more discussion and debate then i thought i would. i was expecting pages of "REEEEEEEEEE" but was pleasantly surprised. im not sure why you are unable to see the same

@Teddy

Also they spent $15mil on that but only $200,000 for book clubs for Pakistani and Afghan kids

first i want to correct you i said 1.5 not 15 and second
those afghan kids to the gov'ment:

Spoiler

@Tamerlane
thank you! its so frustrating when i know the man is great in his field but i know so little of the field i cant say why :/

 

[Kaldrak]

@Tamerlane Read my avatar's shirt....

 

[M0NST3R]

So I've been reading Fascism for the Millions by Oswald Mosely and I have this to say thusfar;

1) I get immediately why people throw fascists and socialists into the same relative camp, as many of the views are basically identical (Granted that's by comparing it to what is in Mao's Red Book). Not exactly, but close enough that the uninitiated would confuse them together.

2) Mosley had precisely one interesting idea and it was to change voting from region to trade. So you would vote for a representative based on the type of work you did rather than the area you lived in.
I can see some issues arising from it but I feel like you could make it work if you had another parliamentary body elected based on location.

3) Mosley is heads and tails a better writer than Mussolini, but he's still wrong as fuck.

Also Mosley straight up devoted an entire section to say that he hated Jews. Well before any of his actual ideas for reform are stated. Which just makes him look like a dumbass copycat of Hitler if you ask me.

 

[Tamerlane]

Fascism believes that everyone's job is to serve the state, and thereby cultivate society to be whatever it wants it to be. That means that your labor belongs to the state, your private property, etc. The reason why Fascists don't nationalize corporations as often as communists is because they believe that, as long as they don't go against the state, they serve the state by promoting its agendas and beliefs, and facilitate the trade needed for society to function.

Why should they make everything nationalized if they already own the people and how they think? What need is there for you to collectively own a business if you already own all of its workers? You can see how someone who first came from Marxist collectivism and then shifted more right and authoritarian could come to this conclusion


Even though between Nazism, Italian, and Spanish Fascism there are many differences, (you could even argue that Imperial Japan during that period was somewhat fascist to some extent) each is undercut by the idea that the state should be the only legitimate and supreme authority by which all other authority is derived from.

However, trying to govern society in such a way is fundamentally unsustainable as it either requires constant scapegoats and expansion to justify all the resources needed to keep the war machine and state power turning, or it will experience such internal decay as with Franco's Spain that the nation will slowly wither and die until it is usurped. In truth, you only have so much political capital and faith from the public before society at large turns against you and what you're doing. Fascist try to spend all of their capital and the people pay the price with blood.

Meanwhile, there's a definite difference in socialism from Fascism in that Socialism belief that by collectively owning the means of production, they can liberate society and make it run more effectively. What's tricky is socialism is an umbrella term that can describe many forms of collective ownership, but what is most commonly accepted in common parlance is Marxist Socialism as opposed to those like Incan Socialism or Right Wing Socialism which Marx would have thoroughly despised. Socialist don't want a dictatorship unless they are expressly Communist, but end up getting one because they need an authority to redistribute the means of production, and any means by which they do so will put too much power in the state which they are unable to get back. Not to mention the power vacuum socialist revolutions create which are filled by ambitious individuals.

 

[readingsit]

@M0NST3R

I get immediately why people throw fascists and socialists into the same relative camp

the full name for 'nazi' is "National Socialist German Workers' Party" so they werent really trying to hide the ball there. my WW history teacher liked to describe fascism as "if socialists recognize the inherent flaws of their ideology so instead opt to be more realistic" as inherently evil as fascism is it worked alot better then any socialist regime.

So you would vote for a representative based on the type of work you did rather than the area you lived in

i feel this can quickly become an issue. while a fear of a possible class war has faded in the modern age the a political segmenting of a population based off of trade worries me and i dont think adding such a dynamic can be positive especially considering how people have injected race into politics and thats just going swimmingly[/s].

@Tamerlane

Why should they make everything nationalized if they already own the people and how they think? What need is there for you to collectively own a business if you already own all of its workers?

sound like how social justice poisons the well. "you wont nationalize this company? then we will just make all the workers and owners into sjw's."

 

[immortalartisan]

Let’s say the next day we woke and learned that a super human Ai had gained self awareness and managed to gain control of every government and declared itself the leader of human kind. Would you attempt to rebel. I mean it’s a dictator ship by a nonhuman so theoretically it should go horribly.

 

[Teddy]

People start making memes, criticize every nose hair and decision the AI makes and cyberbullies it into resigning.

 

[Hornyturtle]

I've seen terminator. AI will have full access to automatic weapons and nukes. You aren't bullying anything when your struggling to keep your rights from being removed by flesh based humans