How Learning Economics Makes You Antisocial - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14991490
QatzelOk wrote:
As soon as real science learns something, people of poor character (isolated greedbags who aren't socialized) will try to figure out a way to buy a Mazerati by marketing something. These people of poor character have been dominating Technological society (civilization) since the beginning, and they ensure that humankind will go extinct, unless they are eliminated from positions of power.


Victoribus Spolia wrote:

I must admit there is something ironic about the person claiming that other people who studied economics are the anti-social ones; especially when that same person is advocating for the elimination of whole groups of people based on their purchasing decisions and intelligence regarding the management of their own personal funds. Dare I say that such a suggestion sounds; anti-social? :lol:

Indeed, What seems more anti-social? making financially intelligent decisions and buying a nice car, or advocating for the extermination of an entire class of people because they have nice things and avoid poverty?

Perhaps anti-social isn't an apt-enough description; I think misanthropic is a far better term in this case.


He only meant their elimination from positions of power, not their physical elimination; as you're suggesting.
#14991660
Stardust wrote:He only meant their elimination from positions of power, not their physical elimination; as you're suggesting.


Let him be the one to answer the charge if I merely misread him.

After all, its not like such rhetoric is uncommon from either him or others who share his ideology. My comments were not made in a vacuum.

Further, let it also be clear to all, that the suggestion of eliminating people from power is not less sinister, just more opaque.

After all, the suggestion that someone should be removed from access to a political process or in any way be forfeit of the rights that they would otherwise be supposed to have, and on the basis of their race, class, gender, religion, or values no less, is only to take a more implicit approach to the process of the same dehumanization that would be made explicit in the direct call for genocide.

In essence, I only see a difference of degree between my interpretation and your own regarding his remarks. Its very problematic either way as it merely expresses his overwhelmingly clear opinion; namely, that people who are good at accumulating wealth relative to the population are somehow defective and somehow less human.
#14991730
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Let him be the one to answer the charge if I merely misread him.

After all, its not like such rhetoric is uncommon from either him or others who share his ideology. My comments were not made in a vacuum.

Further, let it also be clear to all, that the suggestion of eliminating people from power is not less sinister, just more opaque.

After all, the suggestion that someone should be removed from access to a political process or in any way be forfeit of the rights that they would otherwise be supposed to have, and on the basis of their race, class, gender, religion, or values no less, is only to take a more implicit approach to the process of the same dehumanization that would be made explicit in the direct call for genocide.

In essence, I only see a difference of degree between my interpretation and your own regarding his remarks. Its very problematic either way as it merely expresses his overwhelmingly clear opinion; namely, that people who are good at accumulating wealth relative to the population are somehow defective and somehow less human.


I agree that honesty would be the best policy here, but I would suggest that if the wealthy of today are so because of their cozy relationship with the State, it would be a matter of legal expropriation not genocide to deal with such people via the same State that gives them this wealth. What it gives it can also take away...
#14991735
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Let him be the one to answer the charge if I merely misread him.

After all, its not like such rhetoric is uncommon from either him or others who share his ideology. My comments were not made in a vacuum.

Further, let it also be clear to all, that the suggestion of eliminating people from power is not less sinister, just more opaque.

After all, the suggestion that someone should be removed from access to a political process or in any way be forfeit of the rights that they would otherwise be supposed to have, and on the basis of their race, class, gender, religion, or values no less, is only to take a more implicit approach to the process of the same dehumanization that would be made explicit in the direct call for genocide.

In essence, I only see a difference of degree between my interpretation and your own regarding his remarks. Its very problematic either way as it merely expresses his overwhelmingly clear opinion; namely, that people who are good at accumulating wealth relative to the population are somehow defective and somehow less human.


Unfortunately Victoribus, in the class-based society that we live today, and have been for such a long time; there are two types of people: one- those who are good at accumulating wealth as you've put it; and second- those who are the creators of wealth, without which the first group / class won't survive a day.

Also, using logical reasoning; lets assume @QatzelOk's premise is correct, i.e. there are greedy individuals dominating the technological society, who ensure that humankind will go extinct, Then the second statement: unless they are eliminated from positions of power. will not be 'sinister' at all, it would be a fair and logical conclusion.

Yes, hope he will step in and clarify his argument.
Last edited by Stardust on 03 Mar 2019 18:29, edited 2 times in total.
#14991932
SSDR wrote:@Stardust, Wishes are for those who lack real consciousness. No revolutionary needs to "wish." Wishing won't do shit.


I see, you're not just wishing so; you actually intend to kill me...

According to you, I have to take him by the neck and drag him here to announce his thoughts on the subject. Well, it won't do for me, as it happens that I believe in choices.
#14991945
SSDR wrote:@Stardust, No one is intending to kill you, you're making shit up.

I never talked about you having to take someone by the neck and drag him here. And I never said that you didn't believe in choices. You're making shit up.


Responding to you is pointless. You're just looking for an opportunity to express the feelings of hatred somewhere...
#14991985
@Stardust, Hatred is the heart of a realist. Hatred is what fuels someone. Without hatred, slavery would still exist, and women would have no liberation. Without hatred, the family institution would still rule the fucking world. Death to love. Long live hatred! :)
#14992038
SSDR wrote:
@Stardust, Hatred is the heart of a realist. Hatred is what fuels someone. Without hatred, slavery would still exist, and women would have no liberation. Without hatred, the family institution would still rule the fucking world. Death to love. Long live hatred! :)



Jumping in here, I think the fallacy at-work is once again that of *scale* -- love or hate are, I would argue, necessarily local-scale and personal, while politics deals with social matters that are commonly *large*-scale and that are *not necessarily* personal.

Countering slavery and women's oppression doesn't require *hatred*, because that's at the wrong scale -- historically-progressive and revolutionary politics require a sense of *justice*, meaning applying social standards on a (roughly) *egalitarian* basis. (Bourgeois law doesn't cut it, though, due to the existence of the class division in society which is a kind of institutionalized *favoritism*, by class.)

And, by the way, it's *economics* / economic dynamics that has brought us past the small-scale family institution, as with ancient urbanization in the Axial Age:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_revolution


And:



The three regions all gave birth to, and then institutionalized, a tradition of travelling scholars, who roamed from city to city to exchange ideas.



[T]he first "universal religions" appeared in the age of the first universal empires and of the first all-encompassing trading networks.[20]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age
#14992067
annatar1914 wrote:I agree that honesty would be the best policy here, but I would suggest that if the wealthy of today are so because of their cozy relationship with the State, it would be a matter of legal expropriation not genocide to deal with such people via the same State that gives them this wealth. What it gives it can also take away...


Obviously I have a problem with this, as I hate Statism and would strongly critique those who benefit from it, which are often the super-rich and incompetent; however, I regard ALL men as made in the image of God and deny that we should wholesale dehumanize anyone, even fat-cat crony- crapitalists.

___________________________

Also, I saw your PM and remarks regarding my recent job loss. I appreciate everything you said; though I still intend to post on your materialism thread.

Thanks again, I appreciate it my friend.

Stardust wrote:Also, using logical reasoning; lets assume @QatzelOk's premise is correct, i.e. there are greedy individuals dominating the technological society, who ensure that humankind will go extinct, Then the second statement: unless they are eliminated from positions of power. will not be 'sinister' at all, it would be a fair and logical conclusion.


No one ever said that his conclusion didn't follow from his premises; however, it seems we are agreed that his conclusion DOES involve ATLEAST the implicit dehumanization of an entire class of people; which, if the situation is as a dire as he claims, it would be equally logical to justify their genocide.

Its not that his conclusion isn't reasonable, but that its blatant wickedness should make us reconsider his premises. After all, depending on our worldview schema, it is always easy to find some group to blame and simplify the solution to the world's problems to an easy "if we only disenfranchised or eliminated this group everything would get better." This of course, not being qualitatively different than simply saying "well if those damn Jews didn't disproportionately control the media, government, and academia, everything would be better."

This is why the only purely subjective element prohibited in the Decalogue was "covetousness," as from it springs the roots of genocidal scapegoating; whether communistic, fascistic, or otherwise.
#14992096
ckaihatsu wrote:Jumping in here, I think the fallacy at-work is once again that of *scale* -- love or hate are, I would argue, necessarily local-scale and personal, while politics deals with social matters that are commonly *large*-scale and that are *not necessarily* personal.

Countering slavery and women's oppression doesn't require *hatred*, because that's at the wrong scale -- historically-progressive and revolutionary politics require a sense of *justice*, meaning applying social standards on a (roughly) *egalitarian* basis. (Bourgeois law doesn't cut it, though, due to the existence of the class division in society which is a kind of institutionalized *favoritism*, by class.)

And, by the way, it's *economics* / economic dynamics that has brought us past the small-scale family institution, as with ancient urbanization in the Axial Age:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_revolution


And:


There is logic in what you're saying; "politics deals with social matters that are commonly *large*-scale and that are *not necessarily* personal.". However, love or hate, human feelings in general; although experienced personally, could be the result of / influenced by the larger scale undertakings, and our experiences in society.

For example, when we see, hear or read about an act of injustice carried out against a group of people, an innocent individual; or the sufferings induced as the consequences of poverty; as human beings we can't help experiencing various feelings - from sadness to shock, sympathy or sometimes even hatred.

The point however, is to understand how to balance such feelings, and how to release the energies created by them / where to direct them – From the extremely negative force, as created by hatred; to the other extreme ‘positive force’ resulted by empathy or love. Bearing in mind that the latter is always stronger and more constructive than the former...

The artists for instance, release their feelings and emotions in their work, the revolutionaries may do so in the cause they believe in, and so forth.

Therefore, we have to note that by focusing on just one emotion, 'hatred' in particular as has been above referred to; one becomes one dimensional in the most consuming way, that feeling will obscure the sight of what is real, and what is the best action to take in a given time.
#14992174
@Victoribus Spolia

Obviously I have a problem with this, as I hate Statism and would strongly critique those who benefit from it, which are often the super-rich and incompetent; however, I regard ALL men as made in the image of God and deny that we should wholesale dehumanize anyone, even fat-cat crony- crapitalists.


Sure, my statement is more along the lines of a sort of warning for those who play the corrupt game of using the power of the State-and even increasing it's power-in order to gain advantage over their business rivals and advantage over the laborers in general. It is not any kind of call for their physical destruction personally.



Also, I saw your PM and remarks regarding my recent job loss. I appreciate everything you said; though I still intend to post on your materialism thread.


No problem, I figured that you were in basic agreement with me on that, which is a separate but related issue to my intent to basically speak as a non-modern on this and other issues. That's why I started another thread which allows me to be more directly contrary to the spirit of the Age.

You'll be fine, I know you will :)

Thanks again, I appreciate it my friend.


You're welcome. One thing I do know, is adversity and how to get past it, so if you need to talk send me a PM, Email, whatever.
#14992270
Stardust wrote:
There is logic in what you're saying; "politics deals with social matters that are commonly *large*-scale and that are *not necessarily* personal.". However, love or hate, human feelings in general; although experienced personally, could be the result of / influenced by the larger scale undertakings, and our experiences in society.

For example, when we see, hear or read about an act of injustice carried out against a group of people, an innocent individual; or the sufferings induced as the consequences of poverty; as human beings we can't help experiencing various feelings - from sadness to shock, sympathy or sometimes even hatred.

The point however, is to understand how to balance such feelings, and how to release the energies created by them / where to direct them – From the extremely negative force, as created by hatred; to the other extreme ‘positive force’ resulted by empathy or love. Bearing in mind that the latter is always stronger and more constructive than the former...

The artists for instance, release their feelings and emotions in their work, the revolutionaries may do so in the cause they believe in, and so forth.

Therefore, we have to note that by focusing on just one emotion, 'hatred' in particular as has been above referred to; one becomes one dimensional in the most consuming way, that feeling will obscure the sight of what is real, and what is the best action to take in a given time.



Sure, I appreciate this interpretation, Stardust, that people can have feelings about what happens to themselves at the hands of large-scale institutions like those of the state, and these feelings can be like the love or hate that we experience interpersonally.

But I have greater appreciation for your last paragraph there, where you're implicitly noting the objective need for *rationality* regarding the overall *situation*, since a reliance on (particularly knee-jerk-type) *emotional* responses will inevitably distort and confound one's response to the real-world situation and any potential *resolution* of the same.

I'll immodestly forward the following social-historical framework as being one that can materially accommodate *any* situation, indexed according to the dimension of scale / magnitude:


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



Also:

universal context

Spoiler: show
Image
#14992373
Thank you Ckaihatsu, for your response and elaboration on the material aspect of our discussion.
#14992530
Hindsite wrote:
I don't agree with the title. To me learning economics did not make me antisocial.
However, learning economics and capitalism did make me an anti-SOCIALIST.
HalleluYah



Capitalism is like a woefully outdated piece of software at this point, to put it generously.

It can't even reconcile its functioning *within its own terms* -- that's how fundamentally flawed it is, not to mention world human suffering as a result, etc.:



The Libor scandal was a series of fraudulent actions connected to the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) and also the resulting investigation and reaction. The Libor is an average interest rate calculated through submissions of interest rates by major banks across the world. The scandal arose when it was discovered that banks were falsely inflating or deflating their rates so as to profit from trades, or to give the impression that they were more creditworthy than they were.[3] Libor underpins approximately $350 trillion in derivatives. It is currently administered by Intercontinental Exchange, which took over running the Libor in January 2014.[4]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal
#14992555
ckaihatsu wrote:Capitalism is like a woefully outdated piece of software at this point, to put it generously.

It can't even reconcile its functioning *within its own terms* -- that's how fundamentally flawed it is, not to mention world human suffering as a result, etc.:

That is crazy talk. Capitalism has been working to build wealth from the beginnings of civilization. Without capitalism, socialism and communism can not long survive. Buying and selling is a necessary part of any successful economy.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]

Is it true Sima Qian's Records Of The Grand Histo[…]