My ‘problem’ and I never said I had one, but I do, of course, is allowing anyone with money–and this includes corporations, foreign and domestic–using money to proselytize any single agenda in an attempt to get their own way with a nation. I’ve never thought of myself as a herd animal.
You asked me to show you the difference between the 4 people currently donating funds to various projects and I told you what I found. That I put it into the form of a question indicated bias on my part. I admitted that.
What don’t you want the major political parties to do? Don’t you think the party representatives should do the jobs they’ve been elected to do?–like govern, maybe? Or has government turned into nothing other than a race for money?
Let’s take a hypothetical; it might leave me out of the ‘bias’ loop. Hypothetical: A governor of a state wants to open a portion of the state to future development, but knows it can’t be done without Federal monies. The governor is a friend of a highly respected member of Congress–someone with influence and authority. The two get together and the Representative agrees to do what’s needed to bring the Federal money to the State–and does so.
It’s then discovered that what the governor wants to do makes little or no sense, given the governor’s desired use. What to do? The governor decides to build a sports arena, instead–and does so. Because of the notoriety around the whole affair, the Representative retires early. The governor gets reelected because of the sports arena. The money has been spent.
And that’s what I mean about a ‘race for money.’ That seems to be what members of Congress spend most of their time doing. But is that what Congress is supposed to be doing? I thought Congress was the Legislative branch, charged with proposing and creating law that’s then presented to the President for approval.
But then, I had the silly idea that the SCOTUS, as the Judicial Branch, was supposed to review the proposed laws before they were enacted, rather than afterwards.
Here’s an excellent interview with Michael Ignatieff, a professor of political philosophy who ran (and lost) in the Canadian 2011 elections–he tells us what life is really like in politics:
So, given Ignatieff (and Machiavelli, of course,) is there any need to ‘reform’ the democratic process or should we simply look more closely at the candidates?
Should we forget about parties and party lines and think about what’s ‘best for the republic?’ Just who should decide what’s ‘best?’
And [i]my[/i] problem is that the only examples of this you cite are conservatives, and the reforms you suggest would only hurt conservatives. Under your laws where businesses can't fund political commercials and religious people aren't allowed to have a say in public policy, rich universities and teacher's unions still get to teach everybody's kids only one side of every issue, and Hollywood still gets to churn out movies that exist for no reason other than thinly-veiled political advocacy. We both know what side of every issue Hollywood and the universities are going to take, so bully for you. My point is that political advocacy is everywhere, and the only part you seem to be seeing is the part that advocates what you disagree with.
Put simply, university professors and movie directors talk shit about oil companies, guns, and religion all day long- even and especially when it is completely outside their field of expertise. What exactly is the problem with people that support these things getting their side of the story out with the means they have access to? If you can explain to me why it’s bad for the Koch Brothers to make a commercial, but good for Michael Moore to make a movie, then explain it. If you can’t explain it, then let’s explore some of the other restrictions on the first amendment you’d like to impose.
A political party exists to get people elected. That is all it is for, that’s the only reason there is such a thing. They aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, they have zero official role in the Government. Yes, I would like politicians to do the actual things we elected them for when they get there, but the clubs they belong to that raise money and awareness to get them the votes they need are exactly that.
Well, yeah, kind of. If we take it for granted that the Federal Government is handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to states with so little oversight that your scenario can occur (and I don't doubt that it is that way), then yeah, the Governors should be trying to grab as big a slice as they can and the Feds should be trying to give it out for the right reasons, and being booted out of office when they screw up. Tightening the flow of money between the Fed and the State is a completely different question to me than campaign finance reform, we probably agree more than we disagree on that by the sounds of it.
I thought Congress was the Legislative branch, charged with proposing and creating law that’s then presented to the President for approval.
But then, I had the silly idea that the SCOTUS, as the Judicial Branch, was supposed to review the proposed laws before they were enacted, rather than afterwards.
Granted, my university experience was a while ago, but I never had a professor who tried to present his/her political views in class. All it would have taken, were such a thing to happen, would have been one complaint from one student and the prof would have been investigated, and the name smearing would have started. University positions are too hard to come by to risk that. You may say what you want, off-campus, but not in the classroom.
I’ve tried to remain nonpartisan in all my replies. At the same time, I’ve admitted my biases, hopefully up front. But I decry certain conservative ‘missions’ that are based mainly on religious conviction, no matter what political party backs them. Abortion is a prime example. Abortion was decriminalized by the SCOTUS in Roe vs Wade. In other words, to me, it took the government (either state or federal) out of the process. Whether or not you or I think abortion is morally right or wrong is irrelevant.
Teaching creationism as 'the only’ explanation for the emergence of man is another example. The Scopes Trial became a theatrical production that focused mainly on Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. The Tennessee law, forbidding the teaching of Darwin’s theory, stood. These are both examples of religious intrusion into government.
Boiling down what the two major political parties now stand for can be just as straight forward. In essence, to me, the Republican Party seems to believe in a market economy that favors big business while the Democratic Party seems to be saying a market economy has to have a work force in order to sustain it.
Which path is the path that leads to ‘what’s best for the republic?’ And who, really, decides?
I think your questions can be merged into each other. Focusing more closely on candidates (which is what my proposal for psychiatric screening tests would amount to) could be considered a kind of democratic “reform”. To do what’s best for the republic might involved focusing very intently on some party line.
I thought the podcast was interesting because Ignatieff speaks from both sides of the spectrum–as someone who was a politician and experienced life right in the thick of politics, and as someone who, before that and after, was an academic and philosopher who didn’t know the first thing about political life. He also speaks as someone who (seems) to have a healthy sense of morality yet at the same time understands the necessity of suspending traditional morality in order to play the game of politics well (which touches very deeply on what I was trying to say in Are all politicians corrupt).
What I found relevant to this discussion is:
How much of a gap there is between what we naively expect or theorize to be the way of politics and how it actually works in practice.
How morally unpalatable real political life turns out to be yet at the same time how this might be necessary for a healthy, thriving republic.
How politicians, in engaging in these (perhaps) necessary morally questionable acts, aren’t necessarily psychopaths or truly immoral at heart (Ignatieff himself speaks of a guilty conscience being necessary to a successful politician, and even that most politicians do have some level of conscience the transgression of which they themselves know would be destructive to the democratic process and therefore hesitate to cross it, and also that Ignatieff being a successful politician himself in the sense that he became the leader of the Liberal Party did not begin as a corrupt politician but a political philosopher working as a university professor–which again touches on my point in Are all politicians corrupt).
It’s an all around good look at what politics is all about and this is central to my aspirations for this thread–I want to understand the nature of political corruption; I want to observe it up front.
The statistics that university professors are overwhelmingly liberal and that they pass it off to their students is there. I'm not interested in teaching you that there's a left slant in academia- if you don't know it, you can't fairly discuss this subject. It certainly has gotten worse over the past few decades though.
Seriously, it actually makes me a little angry that we’re having a conversation on how powerful people use their power and influence to shape politics, and you’re going to treat one of the most notorious examples of it like it’s not real. It also irritates me that, assuming you know that liberal professors outnumber conservative professors by a huge margin, you’re comfortable just assuming that doesn’t have an influence over what goes on in the classroom because ‘there would be a scandal otherwise’. As if
1.) There aren’t scandals and outrage about this constantly that you could know about if you wanted, and
2.) You’d be equally willing to assume everything was fine if conservative professors outnumbered progressives by 5 to 1, as is the case in reverse now.
At the very least, on the abstract level, can you understand how dangerous the kinds of things you are proposing are? Even if you think you're right about everything and universities are presenting both sides of political issues (how can you possibly), can you see how OTHER, hypothetical, well meaning people could propose limits on free speech, campaign donations, or political actions that adversely affect some agendas far more than others?
Well then answer my question: why is it a problem for the Koch brothers to make a commercial, but not a problem for Michael Moore to make a movie?
I’m not interested in your posturing of non-partisanship- you aren’t and you can’t be. But let’s look at the issue you have raised- answer the question above, I think it gets to it succinctly.
Liz, can you answer Ucci’s question? I think on some level you must understand what Ucci’s getting at, but you seem to be following your own liberal agenda in advocating it here as a means to how you think democracy/republicanism can be improved; I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this per se–I don’t think we have to refrain from advocating what we think would make for a better political system or government, especially when what we think would make things better are often tied up in our left-leaning or right-leaning preferences, as this has always been the name of the game. I think what Ucci is asking for, however, is some acknowledgement that you realize this is a personal bias of yours.
I don’t understand what your question has to do with what I was talking about–or what this thread is supposed to be about. There’s no “problem” so much as there’s a difference. The Koch brothers made a commercial to further a political agenda; Michael Moore made 2-3 movies to further political agendas. Both are biased. The difference is that Moore’s primary reason was to make money for himself and his production company. The AFP commercial specifically targets ‘Obamacare;’ the Michael Moore films are more general in their attacks. The commercial has been debunked by several credible sources; the Moore films haven’t–as far as I know.
I don’t understand what it is you’re asking of me, Ucci.
Gib, I’ve already said, several times, that of course I’m biased. Everyone is! Please tell me what our several, individual, biases have to do with the price of eggs in China?
At the risk of exhibiting more bias, but because you want an example of ‘corruption’ in US politics, I invite you to read this:
Good interview gib, thanks. I might buy his book (after I finish the pile I have lined up).
Ignatieff confessed that while he taught Machiavelli, he realized that he didn’t understand him until he got into politics. I find that very interesting.
Our political systems have been designed and built by sociopaths so it’s little wonder that a particular breed of people are attracted to, and flourish in, the kill-or-be-killed atmosphere. The sensitive, moral or honourable people just get trampled in the rush to power. Of course, this is not how it has to be; it’s just the way it has been designed by those who operate behind the scenes. We have been programmed to think this is normal.
How is it obvious that you didn’t mean it that way? Especially in writing, understatement does not come through. Also, I ignore innuendo and sarcasm in such settings, those are passed through how something is said, we cannot control how other people take what we type. I am not sorry that I took your words for their actual meaning and not how you meant them.
An example of this is the question I asked, I meant it literally, “How much resources do we throw at something that is not working?” Really it’s a decision that is made every day, by all people, we just don’t ask it out loud like that. It is an incredibly important question, one that too many attempting to “reform” democracy don’t include consciously. Another example: Does welfare actually help the poor? How much resources do we throw into it if it doesn’t help?
I didn’t have a reply to them. It was not omission with negative intent, but instead just no response to give, so I gave what I could. (This is a good example of how intent does not carry through writing.)
Yes, most people have more faith in social sciences than I do. I have limited faith that they are anything more than outposts for liberal politics. Used because real science is politics neutral on facts and the application of science. From when low IQ scores were used to justify the oppression of different races, to “psychologists” seeking to prove that Conservatism is a psychological disorder, the soft social sciences are used to back up the opinion of the “scientist.” Marxists call their politics science, so that people that disagree are anti-science. Nazi’s were going along with the common theories of the intelligentsia at the time. Great harm has been done to people, because the social sciences are so fucking soft…
That is not to say that no good has come out of them. I just approach anyone that claims to “know” with a grain of salt, and if it requires other peoples money to “know” properly, it quickly turns into a mountain of salt. I doubly have a problem when government is involved because government is politics. Neither exists without the other, and I have no faith in government.
Absolutely, we can agree to disagree on these points. Feel free not to respond to any of my ranting here^.
[size=85](Cutting in here, because this is the important part for this thread.)[/size] Yes, such things are “easily exposed” the problem comes when the exposure is ignored and people take action based off of the stupid numbers. How many people are acting on poor figures that where politically motivated creations? Another example is rape statistics, the people that came up with the 1 in 4 figures have come out and said, we know they are wrong, but that’s ok because we are proving a point and trying to do good.
Interestingly I read an article on this being a problem even in the hard sciences. That studies get publish, getting through pier review, then they are proved wrong, but people still sight the original, now defunct study, because it fits what they want to hear… It is a huge problem in psychology… (Let me see if I can find it, it was over a year ago now…)
Not deleting this time, because I dont’ want to omit, but I have no real reply to all of this that wasn’t covered in the other thread or wouldn’t be, “Yeah.”
Except that it does happen all the time in practice. One of the people I read consistently is Thomas Sowell. Though he is a political commentator and Economic Professor, one of the other things he worked on is autism/late speakers. At one point a group of people started asking how he had fixed autism in their children, because the children he was working with started speaking and doing fine. He had to work surprisingly hard to show he did not fix them, that they were just late speakers. The reason he had to work so hard at it is that he was not the only one working at it, and other scientists had not worked to disprove that was what was going on, they publish that they had found the answer. Scientists are people too, and politics is not the only reason to bias a study, though it maybe they were just mistaken with their results… The fame of fixing autism would be huge though…
I am not good a faith, if you want to persuade me that the system works you are going to need extensive proof.
Kewlio, though your division maybe why we are not on the same page.
No and No. These are examples of crony capitalism.
Yes.
Lets just say the point at which you see a balance is different than the point at which I see a balance. Then can I be working to shift to that balance every bit as much as you? I am not an extremist. As I said before, Government is required for some things, but only the things we must do through government. Such as roads and basic infrastructure.
I like to think my active participation is the greatest sign of willingness to cooperate.
I have shown why minimum wage does not work, I have shown examples (look at what is happening in Seattle right now, they raised the minimum wage to $15 and unemployment skyrocketed) at this point, I have nothing to convince you with, you believe in Minimum Wage, it is like a god (little d intentional, I doubt you pray to it). No, it’s not socialism if the government is intervening. As long as the government doesn’t decide on the winner or allow for unions in its own institutions I am fine with Unions. I like them in that setting in fact…
You said
Which includes preconceived notions of poverty, too little pay for too much work, and capitalism. In the western world, we are surrounded by wealth. We have grown used to it like a fish in water. As a result, when we look at people with less wealth, we see them as “living in poverty.” We, in our arrogance, believe that the answer is, they should just live like us. They however may not be able to jump up to that level without causing huge amounts of damage, an old line is, The best is the enemy of better. If we actually want to help people living in poverty we may not be able just to demand that someone does something about it. What are you willing to sacrifice, while understanding that others may not be willing. That demanding they do so anyway is theft, arrogant theft, but your heart is in the “right place.” Too little pay for too much work requires that the individual making such a statement understands all of the factors that the person dealing with the situation already understands, then placing in the individuals own preconceived notions as to what is tolerable. No one except the person getting paid too little for too much work understand all the factors, though here in the west we are quite good at placing our own opinions on others. In the global market, such as places like Communist China, all to often people claim that places that are not capitalistic, are capitalistic. Yet, as those countries have included more capitalism, the average lifestyle has risen. It is arrogant to assume that if Nike removes all its factories, or cuts down on employees for pay raises that everything will be better (See minimum wage/price floors)… It places preconceived notions of how things “should” work over how things do work. The result of Nike removing their factories may just be that all those people are unemployed… but, yes then they wouldn’t get paid too little for too much work… Can’t we let them decide that?
If you really think we can solve scarcity, then yes you are arrogant, even if you are being nice when talking about it… Arrogant does not equal impolite…
No, the gap between the rich and the poor will never go away. It will exist, because it is natural, like trees and rain. Some people are born better off, either because their ancestors worked for them, because they work their ass off, or just plain dumb luck. The goal however is not to fix the gap, it is to make everyone better off. If the rich live on a mystical island that gives them supernatural powers while on the island, who gives a shit, so long as everyone is better off for it. If everyone’s life span increases, more people live in homes, more people eat well, then I’m all out of fucks to give about the gap. I think this is one of the underlining differences between progressives and conservatives. Progressives see something as unfair, Conservatives look at what are the other options.
I’m even one of those people that doesn’t think we need to get rid of the gap. It provides incentives. My perfect world does not include equality, though everyone would be much better off.
Are you good at chess? I’ve only played a little bit…
It bogs down the thread, here is a link instead. Though it does not go into the problems of cronyism and killing small time breweries.
Agreed, and that is one reason I say, actions are what matter and what we must be punished/rewarded on.
Indeed you have. I’m sorry, I think I phrased the dilemma wrong. Let me try this: we all need to recognize the difference between what we disagree with in politics and what counts as actual corruption. One of us may disagree with certain gun laws, or with the way certain groups tip the scale in favor of freer gun laws with their lobbying, but this is different from an example of corruption. A truly uncorrupt and functional democracy/republic in which all citizens are free and have the right to speak their minds will feature groups of people who vehemently disagree with each other on all kinds of issues. I think what Ucci’s looking for is an acknowledgement that you understand this–that you’re not mistaking your disagreement with certain sides of certain issues with political corruption.
Thanks for the link. I’ll read through it soon.
You see, this is what I question. I don’t know if you can just say the system was built by sociopaths. If “sociopath” is an apt label, I suspect it’s still a very different kind of sociopath than the stereotypical one who ends up in jail for manslaughter. I’m still not sure why being successful in politics requires having no conscience or being driven to ruthlessly seek out one’s own self-interest. Why can’t one mean to make the world a better place while at the same time understand what it takes to do so in the ruthless atmosphere of cut-throat politics. Why can’t a moral person simply out smart the sociopath?
I’m not asking for an apology, Eric; in fact, I think we should drop this as arguing over it seems petty to me. I don’t think we should throw unlimited funds at anything, but neither do I think we should quit funding something that doesn’t seem to be getting any results immediately (otherwise nothing would get started). I think some things should be given a chance. ← that’s my position. I understand that on the particular topic we’re talking about–funding the social sciences to study political corruption–you disagree that it should be given any more funding than it already is (or maybe reduced funding).
But what is it about “hard” sciences that makes it immune to this kind of abuse?
Paranoia is a bottomless pit. To stop falling, you’ve got to cling onto something, some safety net. What’s yours, if you have one, when it comes to the natural science that simply doesn’t work in the social sciences? Or do you treat them equally in regards to their trustworthiness, and if so, does that mean you believe that literally anything is possible from creationism to magic voodoo practices and the occult?
Seems pretty shameless to me. But again, I want to treat the question of whether such studies can be properly done separately from the question of how to get the results of such studies to the people and distinguish it from corrupt or “invalid” results.
Well, that hints at what your response would be to my questions above.
It’s not clear from this example whether the scientists who published that they had found the answer explained their methods in any detail. You do understand the distinction I’m making, don’t you? The distinction between using a sloppy methodology either because of bias or stupidity and therefore arriving at unfounded conclusions, and claiming to have used a robust and well-thought-out methodology but lying that you in fact used it or the results you got. When you say “that it does happen all the time in practice,” it’s not clear that the example you cite is a case of the latter.
Probably… and given your thoughts as you expressed them throughout this thread, I would guess the former problem isn’t much of a problem–of course, it’s possible to conduct such studies with adequate care and robustness, I would predict you saying–but the latter is a near insoluble problem–I myself can’t think for the life of me how you would keep the trustworthy science separate from the bunk and make it easy for the people to tell the difference (and even if you could, plain old skepticism on the part of the people is still going to stand in the way of the reliable science being believed).
So are we at a stand still?
Oh, please. All I said was that I was still skeptical. You have to understand that the idea of minimum wage being harmful is, at first blush, counterintuitive (at least where I come from). That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it’s just that it comes across as an extraordinary claim which requires… well, you know. That minimum wage increases unemployment is good evidence–and I can see how that works, so I’m not ignoring it–but I wouldn’t call it extraordinary.
The only arrogance I see here is interpreting a request to comment on the “poverty” due to “too little pay for too much work” as an official claim that it is indeed poverty and they are indeed being paid too little for too much work. Albiet I could have called it the “alleged” poverty or “allegedly” too little pay… if that would have made it more clear to you, but I don’t feel like putting the word “alleged” before every phrase I utter as I would literally have to put it before every phrase I utter. I think that would be the only way I could possible refrain from carrying with me all my preconceived notions as almost everything I assume is preconceived. You’re right that we in the West are used to thinking of those who work in sweat shops as living in poverty and that they are abused, but I’m not immune to that. I am a victom of social indoctrination just as much as anyone else, and if that qualifies me for arrogance, then we’re all arrogant. But I don’t think this makes sense. I think it should be clear that asking you to comment on these preconceived notions at least implies that I’m open to changing my views on tem… and that’s why it’s not arrogance.
I agree that arrogance is not impoliteness, but if you think being impolite is OK, then I have no further desire to carry on this discussion with you.
And… bingo! Exactly what I thought you’d say… and I agree. The gap increases because both are getting rich at different rates, correct? The sweat shop worker gets a bit richer–say making 3 dollars a day instead of 2–and the CEO back in America is now making 3 million a year instead of 2. It’s like two cars driving down the highway–the gap between them increases because the one in front is driving faster than the one behind, but both are traveling in the same direction and both will eventually get to their destination.
^^ You see, Eric, I can be persuaded.
Hell, no. I’ve played with my wife a few times and she kicked my ass each time.
Similarly for card games. In fact, a friend of mine once inquired if I had any brain damage after a game. I wouldn’t say it’s damaged per se, but I know my brain is not wired for on-the-spot strategizing.
I don’t know that it is petty, I think attempting to imply instead of communicating clearly is a huge issue, not only here but “IRL.” But, I think that that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and so agree we/I should just drop it…
Nothing, they just have a little less room for it… A little less because string theory doesn’t intrude on peoples lives in the same way that psychology does. But it is very little…
I love that theory, it’s just silly enough to make me giggle… I actually struggle with the safety net idea quite often. I am not sure. But that is another thread… Or at least something no one but me cares about… And I’m not even sure I do…
I think it goes back to the same problem with voting. We have to have an “educated” public for any decently useful results and applications. But that requires work, with only long term rewards, which humans are just not built to see…
Upon review I might have gone a little to far, I’ve just argued this point so many damned times. It makes perfect sense to me, on every level. I’ve known it from the first time I really thought about Minimum Wage… Though admittedly, I originally argued it was wrong for the wrong reasons… At the time I thought it just created inflation, it doesn’t. People just stop hiring other people, and demand more of their employees for less money. Because the increase in minimum wage does increase the income gained by the company, it just increases the costs to employ people. It also enforces sticky wages which is a real problem.
Oh, I was saying that you have been incredibly polite even while the theory is arrogant in its statement of the problems at hand. I try to return the politeness you have shown me. Impolite is not ok. Arrogance is not useful, so I tend to think poorly of it.
Yes, though I want to lay down some nit picky arguments I wont, because they are nit picky and unnecessary. I’m glad I’ve convinced at least one person that the problem is not fairness… If that is what I have indeed done. And, thank you for reading…
Suck. I’m ok at chess, I don’t have people to play with (sorta), I am a little better than ok at card games. I’ve just played so many. I guess I’m lucky, my brain is wired for on-the-spot strategizing… But I see it as a skill, practice thinking so that when the time comes I can do it quick, just like any other skill, it’s why reading is important. 10,000 hours my friend.
I’ve found nothing to indicate that this ordinance has led to increased unemployment. Eric, where are your citations?
We will always have poverty. Yes! Of course! Le Madame les Belle Curve demands it. But what is poverty? What’s the difference between ‘poverty’ and the ‘working poor?’ Should we be discussing it in this thread?
Economics is a ‘social science.’ Marketing is a part of Economics, as I understand marketing, because marketing creates demand. Does Nike really make the “best” sport shoe? Is the shoe it makes so good it ‘demands’ the price tag it carries? The same can be said about any brand name that comes with a high price tag. Is this a part of Reforming Democracy?
I’ll let ucci answer for himself. To answer you, specifically, I see no ‘dilemma’ and no ‘problem,’ on my part, and I’ve said as much. Ucci, however, doesn’t seem to believe me.
I wondered, last night, if that was because of the word ‘bias.’
Ucci, rather than ‘biased,’ do you mean you think I’m ‘prejudiced’ against what you believe?
Gib, am I either biased or prejudiced when I say I want religion in any form or expression out of politics? (I don’t mean to put you on the spot, gib. This is really directed as everyone reading this.) The SCOTUS decision in Roe vs Wade wasn’t religious until religious factions made it so.
I disagree with the SCOTUS decision in the Citizens United case and said so way back when. To me, the XIVth amendment was misinterpreted. But the SCOTUS also had case law setting precedent, so the XIVth kind of took second place to the IInd. Whatever.
I’d like to see the Citizen United decision reversed. I’m not alone in that.
I don’t understand labels, so I can’t say I’m one label or another. I’m not ‘posturing.’ I agree with some things, I disagree with some things. If I agree with more things that are labeled ‘liberal,’ where’s the onus?
I find the whole ‘debate’ currently going on between the two major parties puerile. And, to quote a good friend, I find discussing politics “…with low information voters who are determined to stay that way” a real waste of time. So be it.
Because most models base it entirely on percentages, it is a group of people in a lower percentage.
Spelling? Smart ass comments asside, I don’t know, I didn’t use the words.
Yes.
Please don’t remind me. Every time I think about it I cry a little.
Marketing is part of business, business uses economics so in a way, yes… But a mistake to many people make about Economics think that money making is economics… This is not what economics is about.
No, I don’t buy them because they fall apart too quickly on me. I think they are crap.
“Supply creates its own demand.” (I know, you are not a Austrian economist, so don’t worry about arguing with that.) People don’t get paid based on their personal preferences, but on what value they create for others, because they rely on others to pay them. Part of the cost of Nike is the name, and the fashion aspects. But, this is nothing new, as long as humans have existed, wealth is fashion. I think the current increase in intelligence being the “new sexy” has everything to do with that understanding.
True, it can also be said about ancient Chinese emperors that grew their nails super long, you can’t even wipe your own ass with those… They are one of the best examples of wealth being put on display. It’s why being fat in the past was in style, and being skinny is now. Wealth is fashion.
Yes, understanding why we are limited in our application of resources, almost the literal definition of economics, is important for understanding why we are where we are with “Democracy.” In this world we are limited in what we can do, limited by our understanding, which increases over time, and limited by our desires, which change over time.
I don’t know. You’re expressing a preference. To me, a bias is a personal or subjective opinion or desire or value (etc.) which influences (consciously or unconsciously) your attempts to be objective or impartial in your views or decisions. A prejudice is all that with an assessment of someone or some group being superior/inferior or worthy/unworthy or deserving/undeserving (etc.) added on top.
So I wouldn’t say you’re prejudiced unless you mean you want religious people out of politics.
But even if you’re just biased, this is why I say to simply be aware of your biases–know thyself–and the rest follows on its own. What I mean is, when one is aware of his/her biases, one is more likely to add that fact (that they are biased) to all the considerations of their views, reasoning, decision making, etc. and it acts as an adjusting factor. For example, I may say that I think socialism is OK, but I know this is a bias because I’m Canadian, and I know that since I’m speaking to Americans who, as I understand, don’t look upon socialism very favorably, I’ll make adjustments to my arguments and opinions in this discussion because the important thing is to figure out what is the best political system for everyone (not just myself but Americans in particular since American politics seems to be the main focus of this discussion). Compare that to an alternate scenario in which I denied that I was biased towards socialism, and therefore thought that socialism was good absolutely–that is, in and of itself, objectively–and so I don’t hold back in shoving my views on socialism down American throats.
For what it’s worth, I believe economics to be the one social science that doesn’t suffer the same shortcomings as the other social sciences–those shortcomings being the reliance on statistical methods to measure what is otherwise scientifically inaccessible (namely, preferences, predispositions, beliefs and values, etc.). The central object that is the focus of economics is money, and money is not only directly, objectively accessible to science, but it is by definition a quantified measuring tool in itself (i.e. we use it to measure the value of goods and services). One can say that a new automobile (for example) is worth exactly $23,950.00 (because we decide it’s worth that much, or we decide that’s how much we’re willing to give up in exchange for it). Even the natural sciences often have to concede that they deal with imprecise measurements.
Eric, I’ll try to respond to your post to me later today.
The important part is the second half. Money is only a measuring tool for economics. Economics deals with resource management, money is one way to measure value… Like joules to an electrician. Economics does suffer a lot of the social science shortcomings, but yes, it has at least some way for actual representation rather than randomly applied opinion, like History. Further it is better at being applied and failing or succeeding. Where as political science ends up being more about arguing well, than succeeding at application. Sadly, all the flaws of being argued well, following trends and wishful opinion still effect it quite a bit…
The value is a representation of the resources that went into it, combined with the application of the object, and the perception of its worth.
True, though Economics is still a social science because it is all about the social…
This is nit picking, trust me I know, but it is important for understanding economics and its application that it is not about money, anymore than electrical engineering is about the Ohms.
Economics is the study of limited resources in an environment. If we have infinite, of anything, economics doesn’t matter for that thing. The specialized study of digital is one of the more interesting aspects of economics, because it crosses the line between idea’s, which is limited, and infinite, because the digital object can be recreated without loss to the original owner.
I love economics, read a lot of it… I don’t do finance, which is all about money. I could help you far better at understanding where your money is going and why you are winning/loosing at life, than help you invest anything.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
(Probably, yes…)