|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 04 2016 05:18 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 05:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that it's just a model and that real life works differently. Majority of people can't even tell you what an economic model is, let alone be able to say "just a model" vs "real life." Let me correct myself then. Everyone who had economics at high school level.
I can only speak for the high schools I attended but there was nothing that even resembled an economics class at them. Closest we had was "business math" which was learning how to use a cash register (but we only had adding machines) and some very basic understanding of accounting like how to total out a register at the end of the day.
In looking it up, they did add it to the requirements as part of 9th grade social studies since the 2014-15 school year though so there's that.
EDIT: If it wasn't clear, my point was that "high school level understandings" of economics aren't as widespread in the US as one might presume.
|
On August 04 2016 06:05 zlefin wrote:
Mine were evidently different from yours; and/or I filtered out the stupid. I don't recall them pushing ideology at all; they were just saying the models we were working with. And some other models that are too complicated to deal with now.
and markets as a general thing, can be looked at without an ideology. And there's the places where markets don't work well, various kinds of market failures.
how many different places did you study it at? I ask because sometimes individual institutions have different sets of standards/beliefs; and it seems likely we're both working from a small sample size. Just two for me of relevance to this.
For me, also just two. Nothing from those institutions to suggest that they were anything but average - they weren't Austrian schools or anything. But honestly I think the difference is more in interpretation of teachings than in particular material differences. Perhaps the biggest difference is in the cultural aspects of the US that just automatically push people towards assuming markets above all, which is something that most instructors didn't really actively encourage but didn't exactly discourage either. At the lower level, the failures of markets and simplified models are taught, but also just sort of glossed over as minor footnotes when they are much more significant than that and sometimes strongly undermine the entire idea of a market approach.
Given the cultural context of a clearly market-friendly society in the US (sometimes to the point of ridiculousness), indoctrination always looks a bit subtle. Sort of in the same way that assuming that if a priest talks about religion to the religious, they might not think that the implicit statement of "God exists and acts according to this religion's scripture" is indoctrination. But it kind of is.
|
|
|
Trump definitely managed to make a lot of his (reluctant) allies turn on him within the past week. Impressive.
|
On August 04 2016 06:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump definitely managed to make a lot of his (reluctant) allies turn on him within the past week. Impressive.
Assume that anything that seems to normalize with Trump will upend over the course of a month.
|
Just watched a Green Party campaign ad on MSNBC. Wow.
Also:
|
On August 04 2016 06:05 zlefin wrote:
Mine were evidently different from yours; and/or I filtered out the stupid. I don't recall them pushing ideology at all; they were just saying the models we were working with. And some other models that are too complicated to deal with now.
and markets as a general thing, can be looked at without an ideology. And there's the places where markets don't work well, various kinds of market failures.
how many different places did you study it at? I ask because sometimes individual institutions have different sets of standards/beliefs; and it seems likely we're both working from a small sample size. Just two for me of relevance to this.
A pretty good book if you want to know deeper about all this is Steve Keen's "Debunking economics", where he is basically just taking the most famous models and textbooks and show how they have been criticized throughout history. It's really well done if you want to know the value of what you learned in econ class and he propose models coming from non orthodox economist that propose a completly different vision of the economy.
Sadly since I teach at low level, I only teach the bullshit to my students lol
|
Trump stepped on a lot of toes throughout this elsction. Never mattered. But you know who Republicans love even more than Reagan? Veterans. Most brilliant thing Democrats have done this year was baiting trump with Khan.
|
|
|
On August 04 2016 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Trump stepped on a lot of toes throughout this elsction. Never mattered. But you know who Republicans love even more than Reagan? Veterans. Most brilliant thing Democrats have done this year was baiting trump with Khan.
I hardly think it was baiting, considering Khan was a response to the vitriol that Trump had been spewing for months. Anti-Muslim comments and anti-veteran comments were made by Trump long before the Khan response came out.
|
On August 04 2016 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Trump stepped on a lot of toes throughout this elsction. Never mattered. But you know who Republicans love even more than Reagan? Veterans. Most brilliant thing Democrats have done this year was baiting trump with Khan. I hardly think it was baiting, considering Khan was a response to the vitriol that Trump had been spewing for months. Anti-Muslim comments and anti-veteran comments were made by Trump long before the Khan response came out.
I don't think it is a coincidence they had a Muslim veteran family that lost their son for the country respond to the 'Muslim ban' that Trump was advocating.
They could have a ton of other Muslims for it. I think they knew Trump would be unlikely to properly respond to Khan and call this backlash down upon himself.
|
On August 04 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 04 2016 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Trump stepped on a lot of toes throughout this elsction. Never mattered. But you know who Republicans love even more than Reagan? Veterans. Most brilliant thing Democrats have done this year was baiting trump with Khan. I hardly think it was baiting, considering Khan was a response to the vitriol that Trump had been spewing for months. Anti-Muslim comments and anti-veteran comments were made by Trump long before the Khan response came out. I don't think it is a coincidence they had a Muslim veteran family that lost their son for the country respond to the 'Muslim ban' that Trump was advocating. They could have a ton of other Muslims for it. I think they knew Trump would be unlikely to properly respond to Khan and call this backlash down upon himself.
Yeah, this is why I think it was an intentional bait as well. It went swimmingly.
|
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it.
|
Donald Trump seems to handle criticism about as well as Gary Callahan. the man lashes out at everyone. was only a matter of time before he went after the wrong person just like McCarthy. the sad thing is I have an uncle who somehow has gone full Trump and has basically been posting racist stuff directed at Khan.
but yeah Trump definately driving everyone crazy
|
On August 04 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it.
I think Khan dumpstered Trump with his speech, but if you're Trump you gotta just take your lumps there. He made you look like a fool, you should be used to it, move on. But he took an everyday drubbing and decided to use it to sink his entire campaign.
|
On August 04 2016 08:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it. I think Khan dumpstered Trump with his speech, but if you're Trump you gotta just take your lumps there. He made you look like a fool, you should be used to it, move on. But he took an everyday drubbing and decided to use it to sink his entire campaign.
Part of being involved in politics is being able to avoid taking straight insults personally. Everyone and everything gets insulted ten times over after you've been in the game for a short while. You just have to know which attacks hurt you and are worth countering, and which are irrelevant and not worth drawing attention to.
In this case, Khan was a nobody who was just some piece of the DNC lineup. If Trump said nothing, no one would have said anything either. It wasn't worth drawing attention to.
|
Yeah maybe the Khans finally drove the point home that Trump is majorly insecure and can't even help himself.
|
On August 04 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it.
I completely agree. If he said nothing then no one would have talked about the guy the day after.
But Trump just cannot ignore a good jab. (or a bad one)
|
On August 04 2016 08:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 04 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it. I think Khan dumpstered Trump with his speech, but if you're Trump you gotta just take your lumps there. He made you look like a fool, you should be used to it, move on. But he took an everyday drubbing and decided to use it to sink his entire campaign. Part of being involved in politics is being able to avoid taking straight insults personally. Everyone and everything gets insulted ten times over after you've been in the game for a short while. You just have to know which attacks hurt you and are worth countering, and which are irrelevant and not worth drawing attention to. In this case, Khan was a nobody who was just some piece of the DNC lineup. If Trump said nothing, no one would have said anything either. It wasn't worth drawing attention to.
I do think Khan got media coverage prior to Trump lashing out, and it was probably THAT media coverage that caused Trump to lash out (because he watches TV and compiles grudges, it would appear). It was a fairly impassioned speech with good quotes. Whoever brought him to the DNC is a genius.
|
On August 04 2016 08:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 04 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:
I think 95% of people would say nothing if Trump said nothing. I didn't see Khan's speech nor was it interesting enough for me to have cared if I had seen it. I think Khan dumpstered Trump with his speech, but if you're Trump you gotta just take your lumps there. He made you look like a fool, you should be used to it, move on. But he took an everyday drubbing and decided to use it to sink his entire campaign. Part of being involved in politics is being able to avoid taking straight insults personally. Everyone and everything gets insulted ten times over after you've been in the game for a short while. You just have to know which attacks hurt you and are worth countering, and which are irrelevant and not worth drawing attention to. In this case, Khan was a nobody who was just some piece of the DNC lineup. If Trump said nothing, no one would have said anything either. It wasn't worth drawing attention to.
People were talking about Khan's speech before Trump said anything. He bitch slapped Donald and everyone knew it and was talking about it along with the rest of the quality speeches. Khan did damage but Trump decided to make the damage catastrophic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
