Once again if your job depends on not knowing something than even the most "scholarly" of individuals in that position are nothing more than reduced to simple soldiers to propagate a status quo and cannot imagine a contradictory stance against it.
Truth, it's just that I don't see them following up with further writings on how it might prove Marxist economics and disprove previous stuff such as from Laffer.
Yeah, it's fucking stupid they act like cavemen who've never heard of Marx and Engels. Even at the top economics schools there seems to be too many people who simply don't read anything beyond their ideology (despite what they may claim with their objections).
There's a mental block, conscious or subconsicous, that prevents libs from reading Marx. They read a paragraph about Marx. for example, and think they know everything and refuse to even read theory for fear it might shatter everything they've ever learned.
And even then there's even more, there's actual material on how supply side economics worked and the type of theory that creates, however you never see any papers or research from economists looking into what post WWII soviet economies were truly like outside of CIA propaganda shit. It's all willful ignorance for fear of biting the hand that feeds.
refuse to even read theory for fear it might shatter everything they’ve ever learned
But it honestly would. The process of unlearning all of the brainwashing you've been subject to since being a child is a long and difficult process, I know personally it's been a years long process. And I never spent $60k+ and years of my life in university getting the advanced :brainworms: either.
I mean, Laffer's Wikipedia-page should be more than enough to disprove him, given that he is most famous for working for both Reagan admins, as well as serving as economic advisor to Donald J Trump.
While that is true, the main reason to dunk on the person isn't that they looked into this empirically, it is having the balls to say that you were surprised by the results and treating this as something new. The analogue is that we wouldn't make fun of physicists studying gravity and say "everyone already knows gravity is a thing!", but if they then wrote a NYT article saying "I was surprised, maybe there might be a thing like gravity. Until this study I didn't know about gravity, I just assumed Aristotle was right and heavy things fall because they contain more Earth element and want to be closer to the other earth." and then go back to using Aristotelian mechanics.
Once again if your job depends on not knowing something than even the most "scholarly" of individuals in that position are nothing more than reduced to simple soldiers to propagate a status quo and cannot imagine a contradictory stance against it.
I don't want to give harvard too much credit, but there's merit to conducting a study that gains empirical data that supports theory.
Not saying these people did it since I haven't read it. .
Truth, it's just that I don't see them following up with further writings on how it might prove Marxist economics and disprove previous stuff such as from Laffer.
Yeah, it's fucking stupid they act like cavemen who've never heard of Marx and Engels. Even at the top economics schools there seems to be too many people who simply don't read anything beyond their ideology (despite what they may claim with their objections).
There's a mental block, conscious or subconsicous, that prevents libs from reading Marx. They read a paragraph about Marx. for example, and think they know everything and refuse to even read theory for fear it might shatter everything they've ever learned.
And even then there's even more, there's actual material on how supply side economics worked and the type of theory that creates, however you never see any papers or research from economists looking into what post WWII soviet economies were truly like outside of CIA propaganda shit. It's all willful ignorance for fear of biting the hand that feeds.
But it honestly would. The process of unlearning all of the brainwashing you've been subject to since being a child is a long and difficult process, I know personally it's been a years long process. And I never spent $60k+ and years of my life in university getting the advanced :brainworms: either.
I mean, Laffer's Wikipedia-page should be more than enough to disprove him, given that he is most famous for working for both Reagan admins, as well as serving as economic advisor to Donald J Trump.
While that is true, the main reason to dunk on the person isn't that they looked into this empirically, it is having the balls to say that you were surprised by the results and treating this as something new. The analogue is that we wouldn't make fun of physicists studying gravity and say "everyone already knows gravity is a thing!", but if they then wrote a NYT article saying "I was surprised, maybe there might be a thing like gravity. Until this study I didn't know about gravity, I just assumed Aristotle was right and heavy things fall because they contain more Earth element and want to be closer to the other earth." and then go back to using Aristotelian mechanics.