Oh man you never heard any of my rants about capitalism as cosmic horror, economists and bourgeoisie and all their followers being priests and acolytes to capital. A death cult devoted to a machine god that is actively consuming their followers, and all life on earth, their own included.
On a level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the insipid flatness of our present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects.
"For some reason people who study human society almost invariably develop empathy for others instead of worshiping the almighty Economy like any sensible person should. This is clearly the fault of those evil commies."
Ok, so this guy's account history is fucking amazing, just look at this absolute banger:
Orthodox economic practices have existed for millennia, but the concept of "capitalism" was invented in the 1840s by the same people who claimed to have invented a viable alternative.
Think of it like the word "cisgender" that was invented by people advocating something abnormal, without wanting to acknowledge that the alternative is the norm.
Also, half of his posts seem to be about anti-semitism, but then he asks if people in Russia have conspiracy theories specifically about Jews, so i'm thinking
Orthodox economic practices have existed for millennia
Like what, hunting-gathering and primitive communism? Considering humanity exist for hundreds of millenias, and thousands if you include pre-humans, it's hard to find more orthodox economic practice.
Hey! It takes years to learn to predict recessions via the flight of birds and analysing animal entrails! It's complicated stuff, you would never be able to comprehend it! You should be thanking the economists!
Half of all economics experiments can not be replicated. If you go to their forums like ejmr you will realize these people are the dumbest dipshits alive. Even they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're peddling.
I went and checked this place out quickly and in roughly two minutes I managed to come across antisemitism, racism, support for genocide, and some sort of fake university grifters. Amazing.
A community full of money-grubbing gluttons that think ethics are for the weak and regularly plot how to sucker people into doing hard work for them, pay them nothing, so they never have to lift a finger in their lives.
Also thinks that all the environmental damage is worth it to respect 'property rights'
"Hey everyone, I just came up with a joke about how da jooz are greedy penny-pinchers!"
Do anglos not realize that they embody almost every antisemitic stereotype out there? /Pol/ is nothing but mental masturbation about how white people will dominate the earth just because they can.
Half of all economics experiments can not be replicated
Is there an actual study which makes this claim, like the one that exists in psychology? Or is this your intuïtion?
Not doubting you btw. As a marxist economist, I'd just like the citation.
Ah, so the doctor of sociology I know who did their PhD on the mental effects of miscarriages was a Russian agent the whole time. I knew caring about loss was communism all along.
It's almost like once you start factoring in human needs and desires, Capitalism isn't actually that good of a system.
Yeah, but caring about things is STUPID and is for STUPID BABBIES!. I'm a big boy and know that the multinational corporation is always right. Porky's greed helps us become the best, most productive versions of ourselves to better serve our purpose to porky, if you don't like that then you're clearly not a big boy like me.
They love it because even though neoclassical economics was discredited nearly a century ago during the Great Depression, it still lives on as conservatives’ understanding of what “economics” is. But all they do is argue from pseudo-psychological first principles like “people are always selfish” or “people always maximize their utility” and try and construct an entire reductive science around that, wholly unconstrained by empirical evidence. And that science conveniently fits in with their conservative political ideas like “giving poor people money will only be wasted”.
Meanwhile Marxian economics is the opposite. The idea isn’t to create “first principles” and try and determine everything from that. It’s overdeterministic. The point isn’t to be able to explain every aspect of the economy like why a basketball autographed by an NBA star is worth more a normal basketball when the socially necessary labor time of both is the same (we actually can, but that’s beside the point). Marxian economics tries to explain the broader trends like commodity production but is flexible enough and open to there being exceptions to the rules.
If you are involved with a real science like physics, you will understand why the first (conservative neoclassical economics) is not a science and the second (Marxian economics) is.
Weirdly enough I feel like physics and Marx should attract similar people. Physics is about discovering the fundamental laws underlying seemingly disparate phenomena. The average physicist gets a half chubb talking about the unification of electricity and magnetism as a single force. Why shouldn’t every physicist also read about commodity fetishism and the reproduction of an inverted ideology in which social relations between humans appear as relations among things? It’s beautifully elegant.
It's basically social science infused with anti-western Marxist pseudoscience, minus economics because Marxist economic propaganda has been discredited beyond repair
Funnily enough in my experience if you talk to anyone in academia outside of econ, it's the first field anyone makes fun of (because in it's current state it's not a serious field of study)
Even the STEM assholes I've met usually take sociology at least just as or more seriously than economics (at least as a major, they still believe in their own investment strategies)
It's the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves, and the sentiment I've always seen of, "I know how the world works, it's money"
I don't see the need for the condescension. My background was in biology, I spoke to another friend about how competition is inefficient and cooperation is more fruitful from an ecological (read: natural science) standpoint. And he started to debate me, my claims are empirical, they don't rely on axioms on what human nature is as argued by philosophers of old (not hating on them, it's the superficial interpretation some econfolk seem to have which is what I find erroneous) and what it means to be rational. I did not bother to try and explain, the Um, akshully they came at me with was so off-putting.
Ah but you see, you failed to take into account my economic model that says you're wrong! Nevermind the fact that my model fails to represent reality in all but the most constructed tests, that's not important.
It's the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves
To get into any econ PhD program essentially requires a math degree. Which is funny because afaik the only other programs that might require that much math are like, physics and math itself.
They then proceed to develop all these intense models, which is what they say the math is needed for. And yeah, sure, the models themselves are complex. But they’re all bullshit. It’s like building some quantitively rigorous model that “proves” intelligent design or that climate change is a hoax. Just because you use a lot of high level math doesn’t mean you’re actually using that math in a correct or useful way.
from the snippet in the original post, emphasis mine:
In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron, the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy described as “unprecedented killing”. The ratio is significantly higher than the civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about half the dead.
“The broad conclusion is that extensive killing of civilians not only contributes nothing to Israel’s security, but that it also contains the foundations for further undermining it,” Levy concluded. “The Gazans who will emerge from the ruins of their homes and the loss of their families will seek revenge that no security arrangements will be able to withstand.”
This reads to me less like, "so we should definitely stop bombing them ASAP to mitigate that threat!" and much more like, "so we would probably just go ahead and kill them all to eliminate that threat," especially considering it was published in Haaretz.
also, the dude we're supposed to be dunking on is a stinky poopoo head with pennies for brains and a shriveled little heart that resembles a dirty wad of crumpled cash
This thread reminded me of a joke my old econ prof told me. He was libertarian and so much of what he taught me I later found out was crap. BUT, the dude had a decent, self-deprecating sense of humor.
A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stuck on a desert island when they come across an unopened can of beans. They all have a discussion on how to open it.
The physicist says “I believe I can calculate the precise height from which we could drop the can where the force would be just enough to weaken it. From there, I can build a sort of tourniquet from vines that will gently pop open the top.”
The chemist then says “That may work. But I’ve been observing the various chemical reactions going on in that cave over there. I believe I could gather just the right mix of chemicals in there that would dissolve the can lid enough for us to get the beans out. Yet none of these chemicals would be toxic to us.”
Finally, the economist chimes in “Okay… assume we have a can opener…”
No wonder they’re too scared to shoot criminals. Back in my day we just asked if they felt lucky before killing them on the spot. None of this woke shit
A Reddit link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.