|
Baa?21244 Posts
she walks the good ol' line between outright spewing bullshit and instead just cherry picks and exaggerates/ignores facts in order to fit events into her narrative
she began her narrative, iirc, with the chilean revolution and the influence of chicago school economics on it - very valid, pretty generally agreed upon, and generally solid.
she then goes on to extrapolate that influence and traces it to the falklands dispute, jumps a bunch of years, and tries to play off the 90s asian financial crisis as all stemming from free market economics when the 90s asian financial crisis is probably the worst example of that out of all the financial crises out there. monetary policy was the driving issue behind lots of the crisis breakout countries, but she wants to ignore the lead up (series of outbreaks in south and central america earlier in the decade) and treat it as some independent event.
The main problem is that it's really really easy to cherry pick events and factoids and make it seem like a "HOLY SHIT HOW DID NO ONE SEE THIS BEFORE" moment when really people have launched much more in depth studies of these events before and gave completely different conclusions. so it's either shoddy research or it's deliberate refusal to acknowledge contrary evidence, neither of which is "lying" but is certainly not good scholarship either.
i didn't read her part about iraq, which she did go over at length at her presentation - it sounded basically like the most generic criticism of the war with the most tired and cliched arguments, and she just tried to relate it to capitalism at every point. i mean, yes, sure that had something to do with it, but she gave a completely simplistic view of it, and as far as i can tell, that was not just the talk but was also present in the book as well.
she also had some weird tirade against the world bank and the imf that i confess i didnt follow. i wasnt sure if she was for or aganist free trade - is she really sure herself? i wouldn't be surprised if the answer was no.
i really don't claim to be an expert on the topic - if there even is one - but the book was written in a very aggravating manner and i strongly disliked it
maybe i hate it cuz i went to business school and im one of those scumbag capitalists she's trying to save the world from
|
the IMF is one of the most evil organizations on the planet...
she would not be for "free trade" in the sense you mean it, no, since that just means "washington consensus", which is what she's attacking in the book. your assumption that there is one objective notion about the way "free trade" should be done is precisely the ideology in question.
the point about the asian financial crisis is NOT that free market economics caused the crisis (any more than the point is that free market economics causes hurricanes). That is NOT the thesis of the book. the thesis of the book is about the way that neoliberal capitalism responds to disasters, using them as opportunities to redistribute wealth upwards and impose liberalization. this liberalization causes more instability, but this is only a feedback loop that is part of the logic of power - it is NOT a conspiracy theory
On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
certainly not good scholarship either.
the book is a polemic. it doesn't pretend to be scholarship.
On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
she just tried to relate it to capitalism at every point. i mean, yes, sure that had something to do with it
i'm stunned you would even think for a moment that any single part of the whole affair DIDN'T have to do with capitalism
On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
maybe i hate it cuz i went to business school and im one of those scumbag capitalists she's trying to save the world from
busyness school is obedience academy for running dogs. you're just defensive and so you react by slandering her
On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
tired and cliched arguments
your criterion is... novelty? maybe they're just true
|
On August 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:the IMF is one of the most evil organizations on the planet... she would not be for "free trade" in the sense you mean it, no, since that just means "washington consensus", which is what she's attacking in the book. your assumption that there is one objective notion about the way "free trade" should be done is precisely the ideology in question. the point about the asian financial crisis is NOT that free market economics caused the crisis (any more than the point is that free market economics causes hurricanes). That is NOT the thesis of the book. the thesis of the book is about the way that neoliberal capitalism responds to disasters, using them as opportunities to redistribute wealth upwards and impose liberalization. this liberalization causes more instability, but this is only a feedback loop that is part of the logic of power - it is NOT a conspiracy theory Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
certainly not good scholarship either.
the book is a polemic. it doesn't pretend to be scholarship. Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
she just tried to relate it to capitalism at every point. i mean, yes, sure that had something to do with it i'm stunned you would even think for a moment that any single part of the whole affair DIDN'T have to do with capitalism Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 13:44 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
maybe i hate it cuz i went to business school and im one of those scumbag capitalists she's trying to save the world from busyness school is obedience academy for running dogs. you're just defensive and so you react by slandering her
Woah sam, chill with the personal attacks. Some of us like capitalism.
|
i've made no personal attacks
if you identify with capitalism to the point that you feel personally attacked, you need to check yrself into the stockholm syndrome clinic
edit: my dear sheepster, you realize that in marxist theory it is very explicit, capitalism is not a problem with the morality of capitalists, they are just tools - they are just the bearers (träger) of capital. they perform a function. anyone who bases their critique on a personal attack against the capitalist class (worse! their managerial servant class) is a vulgar deviationist. (of course there is still always the necessity for the critique of ideology - that is a different matter).
|
Australia8532 Posts
|
^haha i read that in 8th grade and was an enormous asshole for two whole weeks. objectivism just a phase, still an asshole
|
I have no opinion on the veracity of the arguments on either side (because frankly I don't care enough), but sam!zdat, the manner in which you argue right now comes of as slightly... well, lets just say it reminds me of the aforementioned 8th grader randians.
----
Next up:
+ Show Spoiler +http://bimg1.mlstatic.com/el-espectador-de-jose-ortega-y-gasset-_MLA-F-132286861_2157.jpg
Ortega y Gasset - The Spectator. After that I'll probably get me a undergrad level introduction to quantum physics. seems like something one should know in more accurate terms than just "the uncertainty principle is about shit being in two positions, yo."
|
lol. never change sam.
finished:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rcqLhYF.jpg)
interesting and easy to read, but a bit repetitive.
|
Many books have been received. What to read now ?
Starting :
![[image loading]](http://www.viviane-voyages.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gargantua.jpg)
Gargantua
![[image loading]](http://images.gibertjoseph.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/075/9782070326075_1_75.jpg)
La Littérature et le mal (Bataille) which would translate I guess as Litterature and Evil.
|
I hope you enjoy it, it's my favourite book. Unfortunately I don't have pictures to put in my post but if I can find them I'll be rereading the entirety of the Sword of Truth series by Mr. Terry Goodkind.
|
Ugh, objectivism. Read some Nozick instead if you want some good libertarianism.
Wow, I wasted my 3000th post on this and lost my Dark Templar. Time to whine to the mods to give it back to me.
|
A bunch of books arrived today. Going to start with Ficciones from Jorge Luis Borges.
|
Lady Fuckingham by Oscar Wilde
yes, again
|
![[image loading]](http://www.lovingtruthbooks.com/images/Products2/4_Md/446_1.jpg)
About halfway through it. Hayek makes some pretty solid arguments and backs up his claims well.
|
@bkrow: I don't think it's as bad of a book as people make it out to be, but the characters are pretty silly sounding.
@paljas: Thats one of my favorite books on ethics and morality. It seems a little simple at times, but I think it really clearly sums up a lot of the important points.
@corumjhalen: I've only encountered bataille in the context of debate, but in that context he seems pretty silly. You should let me know how that book goes for you.
@crayhasissues: Don't let sam!zdat see you reading that.
|
@Packrat : so far it's a lot of very strange stuff bordering on silliness, but with very a few very smart things in it. I HATE how he writes though. At least it's pretty short.
|
On August 27 2013 03:39 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 03:19 sam!zdat wrote:oh I think that book is one of the best things ever written. i just want our friend to stand up for himself  That's how I interpreted it, but I wasn't totally sure either. You're obviously right, I wanted to express that too @Sprouter : I admit my edition of Thucydide had absolutely splendid notes, including one of the funniest I've ever read which said something along the lines of "but the ancient greeks were also lucky enough not to know about the hegelian dialectics of master and slave". that sounds interesting, what's the isbn/author of that edition?
|
On August 29 2013 05:43 Sprouter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 03:39 corumjhaelen wrote:On August 27 2013 03:19 sam!zdat wrote:oh I think that book is one of the best things ever written. i just want our friend to stand up for himself That's how I interpreted it, but I wasn't totally sure either. You're obviously right, I wanted to express that too @Sprouter : I admit my edition of Thucydide had absolutely splendid notes, including one of the funniest I've ever read which said something along the lines of "but the ancient greeks were also lucky enough not to know about the hegelian dialectics of master and slave". that sounds interesting, what's the isbn/author of that edition?
Well it's French, so I'm not sure it's any use, but...Folio classique, Denis Roussel, ISBN 978-2-07-040068
|
On August 29 2013 05:29 packrat386 wrote:
@crayhasissues: Don't let sam!zdat see you reading that.
hayek is not scum like milton friedman is
I think highly of Nassim Taleb who thinks highly of hayek. I haven't really studied him, so I have only transitive opinions about him. not my guy, but like I say, milton friedman is on a whole new level of anti-christ status
|
On August 29 2013 07:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:29 packrat386 wrote:
@crayhasissues: Don't let sam!zdat see you reading that. hayek is not scum like milton friedman is I think highly of Nassim Taleb who thinks highly of hayek. I haven't really studied him, so I have only transitive opinions about him. not my guy, but like I say, milton friedman is on a whole new level of anti-christ status
It was mostly a joke because I know that Hayek is a predominant author in the austrian school of economics. I wouldn't have thought that it was your thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JvO5pYZ.jpg)
