This is always the worst leftist take. How do you square historical materialism and "you literally can't predict how a population will respond to economic policies".
This just feels like warmed over AnCap laisse-faire Invisible Hand shit. Don't try and touch anything! The market is ineffable and omnipotent! We must not anger it by trying to observe and change things!
This. Neoclassical economics is a modern version of taking the augury. The fed might as well sacrifice a rabbit and check its liver for abnormalities for all the explanatory power their theory has.
it is made with the pretty implicit understanding that they are referring popular economics
Its often stated in proximity to popular economic views. But it only confuses the conversation, as it implies certain sociological behaviors can't be qualified rather than that the current quants are running numbers off cooked books.
Pithy quotes like that should be a jumping off point for a conversation or just meant to provoke thought
Meh. "X is a Religion" always comes off a thought-terminating. It implies that any additional conversation is simply your orthodox view and not a logical thought progression.
You can’t write perfect slogans that 100% describe your ideology or political aims.
True. But you can weed out the shit ones. "X is a Religion" inevitably devolves into some personal attack on the subject expressing the belief. It is an ideological position rather than a material one.
That's before you get into the value of religion as a useful heuristic for navigating complex social situations. Its just a bad phrasing, all around.
“Eat the rich” is another example of such a slogan.
Its a much better slogan because it forms a basis for class consciousness while being implicitly jokular.
They all establish testable hypotheses which can be evaluated with data.
The catch is in the conclusions. Neoliberals telling us that smoking won't cause cancer, climate change is fixable with a new widget, and "Head On! Apply directly to the Forehead!" is good medical advice do not somehow invalidate centuries of accumulated research and data collection to the contrary by rendering their fields invalid.
Invisible hand line go up trickle down isn't the only form of economics. Marxian economics exists as a field. if you want to drag orthodoxy, why don't you say neoclassical economics is a religion?
to hazard a guess, neoliberalism is so dominant in western politics, media, and academia that normal people have no reason to make distinctions between franchises.
The "Spectre of Communism" line was illustrative, particularly in the context of the subsequent passages which intend to give Communism corporeal form through the Manifesto.
The "Economics is a religion" line is mystifying. It occludes a method by which we understand human behavior and besmerches an entire field rather than the cartel of bad actors currently running the show. There's a huge gulf between "Milton Friedman is the high priest of a phoney profession" and "Milton Friedman is lying to you about where pencils come from".
Economics is a religion, not a science.
"Trickle down is perfect because it simply is, anything else is blasphemy! Trust your private sector clerics!"
This is always the worst leftist take. How do you square historical materialism and "you literally can't predict how a population will respond to economic policies".
This just feels like warmed over AnCap laisse-faire Invisible Hand shit. Don't try and touch anything! The market is ineffable and omnipotent! We must not anger it by trying to observe and change things!
deleted by creator
This. Neoclassical economics is a modern version of taking the augury. The fed might as well sacrifice a rabbit and check its liver for abnormalities for all the explanatory power their theory has.
Its often stated in proximity to popular economic views. But it only confuses the conversation, as it implies certain sociological behaviors can't be qualified rather than that the current quants are running numbers off cooked books.
deleted by creator
Meh. "X is a Religion" always comes off a thought-terminating. It implies that any additional conversation is simply your orthodox view and not a logical thought progression.
True. But you can weed out the shit ones. "X is a Religion" inevitably devolves into some personal attack on the subject expressing the belief. It is an ideological position rather than a material one.
That's before you get into the value of religion as a useful heuristic for navigating complex social situations. Its just a bad phrasing, all around.
Its a much better slogan because it forms a basis for class consciousness while being implicitly jokular.
so we're just going to ignore the plan of spray painting the entirity of das kapital onto a building
leftist_meme.jpg
invisible hand line go up trickle down econ is absolutely a religion for those people.
other studies of economic activity are mostly less pants-on-head but even MMT and keynsian stuff falls short of the immortal science.
They all establish testable hypotheses which can be evaluated with data.
The catch is in the conclusions. Neoliberals telling us that smoking won't cause cancer, climate change is fixable with a new widget, and "Head On! Apply directly to the Forehead!" is good medical advice do not somehow invalidate centuries of accumulated research and data collection to the contrary by rendering their fields invalid.
is not
Invisible hand line go up trickle down isn't the only form of economics. Marxian economics exists as a field. if you want to drag orthodoxy, why don't you say neoclassical economics is a religion?
idk I specified, ask the other user.
to hazard a guess, neoliberalism is so dominant in western politics, media, and academia that normal people have no reason to make distinctions between franchises.
it's just poetic license, might as well get mad at marx for calling communism a spectre
The "Spectre of Communism" line was illustrative, particularly in the context of the subsequent passages which intend to give Communism corporeal form through the Manifesto.
The "Economics is a religion" line is mystifying. It occludes a method by which we understand human behavior and besmerches an entire field rather than the cartel of bad actors currently running the show. There's a huge gulf between "Milton Friedman is the high priest of a phoney profession" and "Milton Friedman is lying to you about where pencils come from".