I’ve talked on my book Age of Em 79 times so far (#80 comes Saturday in Pisa, Italy). As it relies a lot on economics, while I mostly talk to non-econ audiences, I’ve been exposed a lot to how ordinary people react to economics. As I
Boring dimwitted tone troll. I don't operate according to Hansonesque expectations.
The prototype for "revolution" is the French, for which "clearly improved" or "clearly harmed" both have their proponents. You might say, I suppose, that since there are strong opinions on both sides, the conclusion isn't "clear." But these differences of opinion closely track ideology.
Yeah, "shaped", but rarely "clearly improved".
Yes, Reconstruction, preceded by the Union Army, not the slaveholders' rebellion. Sorry I was unclear.
I would categorize that as more a rebellion than a revolution as well. Or do you mean the Reconstruction?
*Have* you, Jim?
I knew that one would get you, and I'm sure you know why it succeeded. You also know what I mean by "your kind." (Unless you're stupid.)
Like most of "your kind," you aren't even self-aware enough to know that you pretend to hate "intellectual dishonesty" only because you're the worst intellectual hypocrite.
I hadn't realized how...
You misappraised my position because you are, it seems, a bit "stupid." Your political arguments are the sort of crude Clinton talking points one expects of "your kind."
"deciding trivial "culture war" issues"
I hadn't realized how stupid, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest you are.
My kind is anyone who isn't an intellectually dishonest git like you.
My comment was not about politics, you projecting moronic hypocrite.
The ones I'm referring to certainly are.
Sure, I think you're exactly the sort of objective commentator I can rely on for what your political opponents think, particularly when it makes them look incredibly ridiculous.
Conservative economists typically ignore the difficulties of coordination when they argue against some forms of redistribution. How many times have I heard about the stupidity or economic illiteracy of favoring a minimum wage or rent control. The conservative economists can provide ways of redistributing income that are much more efficient!
Maybe efficient, but impossible to coordinate for because it ignores coalition politics. Whereas raising the minimum wage is typically part of a program of measures that include expanding employment and expanding poor relief.
I agree with you on the Palestinians. But you think a liberal Supreme Court (deciding trivial "culture war" issues) warrants supporting someone who will commit mass murder. You think that anyone who doesn't share your narcissistic priorities is stupid. Typical of your kind.
[Added.] See "Rights, reinterpretation, and reform" for a general opposition to strategically using judicial interpretation for political reform - http://juridicalcoherence.b...
"They aren't denying the difficulty of coordination "
The ones I'm referring to certainly are. (I suppose I shouldn't have used Sanders as an example because of the likelihood that someone would foolishly make this about politics). A classic example of this sort of thing was Douglas Hofstadter's Luring lottery and his absurd insistence on such a thing as "metarationality" despite numerous mathematicians and game theorists trying to explain to him that just wishing for such a thing won't make it real.
P.S. Rejecting both Trump and Clinton rejects reality and makes you stupid. Clinton has numerous positives that intellectually dishonest gits simply ignore, while pointing at negatives that pale before Trump's, and are "partly" Obama administration policy that originated from or had to be signed off by him. (It's worth noting that Hillary opposed her husband's 1994 planned invasion of Haiti, and she disagreed with Obama on attacking Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan until she became his SoS.) If rejecting Clinton based on a high negative were an option or remotely rational, I would reject her, along with nearly every other American politician, for her support of Israel's illegal and inhumane policies in re the Palestinians. If elected, numerous Palestinians will suffer and die due to Hillary's attitude towards Israel. As much as that pains me, I will still vote for her.
On top of that, you have to be a complete and utter moron, or an intellectual charlatan, to overlook the reality of American party politics. The party of the President, whoever that individual is, determines to a large part what legislation will become law and who will serve on the Supreme Court and fill other judicial vacancies. Republicans actually understand this, which is why 90% of the party is united behind Trump despite many finding him personally appalling. The number one argument for voting for Trump in conservative discussion forums is to keep Hillary from moving the SCOTUS to the left.
I've thought carefully about how stupid, worthless, and hypocritical your comment is.
Why do you have to be such an imbecile, and an intellectual coward? I point out major errors in your reasoning and reading comprehension, and all you do is whine about what an awful person I am for noting that you're an idiot. And what's with deleting your comments, destroying the context?