EPT![[image loading]](http://www.babelio.com/couv/cvt_Hegel_3342.jpeg)
Hegel, Kostas Papaioannou
Excellent introduction to Hegel by a greek writing and translating in French. So clear yet precise on such a difficult subject, a pity this was not translated in English.
What Are You Reading 2015 - Page 42
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Hegel, Kostas Papaioannou Excellent introduction to Hegel by a greek writing and translating in French. So clear yet precise on such a difficult subject, a pity this was not translated in English. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17329 Posts
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51IdRbJ9pEL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) Opera's Second Death by Slavoj Žižek and Mladen Dolar. Might be fun. | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On August 27 2015 07:08 zulu_nation8 wrote: So I actually started reading A Brief History of Neoliberalism as per samzidat's rec and was wondering if there are any recent works, preferably after the housing crisis, that counters Harvey's extremely negative opinion of neoliberalism. I'm halfway through the book and he's barely said anything about why Keynesian economics started to fail and drove America and Britain into stagflation in the 70s which gave rise to Neoliberal politicians. No one treats that topic better than Milton Friedman. (Arguably, no one writes more powerfully about economics than Milton Friedman, even if you disagree with him). People who disagree with him have been trying ever since to come up with an argument that counters his points. I'd suggest starting with Free to Choose. It came with one of the better TV series ever produced by PBS. ![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71pzp6tqelL.jpg) In general, his arguments are along the lines: Greed is not good, but you can't get rid of it. The free market as an economic system can manage greed. We should help poor people. Capitalism has helped more people out of poverty than any other system. Regulators would be great if you could have perfect regulators, but in the real world, perfect regulators don't exist. etc. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5614 Posts
 | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On August 30 2015 21:58 farvacola wrote: Compared to Marx, Friedman writes of economics with the force of a greedy child who has been caught tricking the neighborhood kids into giving him their ice cream. Your summary of his major points are as naked as his analysis. Then again, such is the case with most, if not all, neoliberal economic writings. To you sir, I recommend A Monetary History of the United States. Friedman won the Nobel prize, and it wasn't because of ice cream. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/A_Monetary_History_of_the_United_States_%281st_edition%29_cover.jpg) Tougher reading, but based on solid data, academically robust. Eventually all economists came to accept Friedman's ideas (for example, that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and purposely inflating won't improve the economy. This isn't even controversial. When people disagree with it now, the farthest they go is saying "in the very short term, inflation can improve the economy."......and that may only be because in the very short term, data is hard to collect so we don't know). As for Marx's writing style......his prose is laborious and his pages endless. He is to literature what what Florence Foster Jenkins is to opera. As for Marx's economics, his analysis fails completely with his failure to recognize that there is labor-value from those who allocate capital well. The Soviet Union learned that the hard way: allocating resources is not an easy task. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
As for your critique of Marx, I'm afraid that pointing to something like allocation labor-value in lieu of an actual attack just makes your reading seem shallow. Perhaps you should actually read Das Kapital And yes, this a pot calling a kettle black, only I'd maintain that one of these vessels is bit more seasoned  | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On September 01 2015 20:49 farvacola wrote: As for your critique of Marx, I'm afraid that pointing to something like allocation labor-value in lieu of an actual attack just makes your reading seem shallow. Perhaps you should actually read Das Kapital That may be true. However, the fact remains that if capitalists provide value, then getting rid of them will mean either losing value, or replacing them with new capitalists. Marx didn't like that rich people had lots of money and power, and that poor people had a tough life and were being abused. He thought capitalism was the problem, but as we've seen, capitalism has been powerful in lifting people out of poverty. Therefore we can conclude that the problem wasn't capitalism, it was elsewhere. Hey, if you think my comments are shallow, that's fine, but in such cases it's polite to show where they are shallow. Help me learn, so I won't be shallow anymore, it makes us all better (and keeps you from looking like an undergrad). | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
Oh, what am I reading? Well, In november i'll be giving a guest lecture for a course at my soon-to-be-former university, so I *had* to buy this for scientific purposes... ![[image loading]](http://41.media.tumblr.com/5b52966ee82729f236ce19e3c9b8e9c1/tumblr_nmvpak0eow1qhal0to2_500.jpg) | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On September 02 2015 06:48 Surth wrote: its a good thing sammy is living in the woods of TLlessness or he would be so mad right now Oh, what am I reading? Well, In november i'll be giving a guest lecture for a course at my soon-to-be-former university, so I *had* to buy this for scientific purposes... I have no idea what that book is about, but I can tell you if I were ever driving through the jungle between a puma and a bear after having a parrot fly up my shirt, I would consider that the epic event of the year. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 02 2015 03:10 phantomfive wrote: That may be true. However, the fact remains that if capitalists provide value, then getting rid of them will mean either losing value, or replacing them with new capitalists. Marx didn't like that rich people had lots of money and power, and that poor people had a tough life and were being abused. He thought capitalism was the problem, but as we've seen, capitalism has been powerful in lifting people out of poverty. Therefore we can conclude that the problem wasn't capitalism, it was elsewhere. Hey, if you think my comments are shallow, that's fine, but in such cases it's polite to show where they are shallow. Help me learn, so I won't be shallow anymore, it makes us all better (and keeps you from looking like an undergrad). Sounds like a simplistic analysis of allocation, probably due to ignorance about both the nature of allocation and alternative allocation schemes. Maybe it wasn't capitalism, per se, that was powerful in lifting people out of poverty, but some other combination of socio-politico-economic factors that could have been achieved through a variety of other non-capitalist regimes. "Therefore we can conclude" that the problem might be capitalism after all. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On August 27 2015 08:58 IgnE wrote: http://www.thenation.com/article/nietzsches-marginal-children-friedrich-hayek/ I know I can count on you guys for a good laugh. | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On September 02 2015 09:39 IgnE wrote: Sounds like a simplistic analysis of allocation, probably due to ignorance about both the nature of allocation and alternative allocation schemes. Please sir, alleviate my ignorance. On September 02 2015 09:39 IgnE wrote: Maybe it wasn't capitalism, per se, that was powerful in lifting people out of poverty, but some other combination of socio-politico-economic factors that could have been achieved through a variety of other non-capitalist regimes. "Therefore we can conclude" that the problem might be capitalism after all. It's happened over and over again, in country after country. There's clear empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis. Having a command economy is just too difficult.....there are too many factors to keep track of, and the people on the top don't understand the needs and desires of the people on the bottom. A command economy is required for communism, otherwise someone will take control of some of the resources of production and keep too much for himself. This isn't a problem is everyone has a good heart, but in the real world there is a system that manages people even without a "good heart." That is capitalism. Thus we see the data and the theoretical explanation are in line, it's appropriate to conclude that capitalism is indeed a facilitator. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 02 2015 13:47 phantomfive wrote: Please sir, alleviate my ignorance. It's happened over and over again, in country after country. There's clear empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis. Having a command economy is just too difficult.....there are too many factors to keep track of, and the people on the top don't understand the needs and desires of the people on the bottom. A command economy is required for communism, otherwise someone will take control of some of the resources of production and keep too much for himself. This isn't a problem is everyone has a good heart, but in the real world there is a system that manages people even without a "good heart." That is capitalism. Thus we see the data and the theoretical explanation are in line, it's appropriate to conclude that capitalism is indeed a facilitator. Ideology in action Divide the world into two camps: Soviet era command economies and late 20th century capitalist economies. Compare the relative success of countries nominally adopting an idealized version of one or the other over that time period. Make crass assumptions like the bolded above. Declare capitalism the winner. | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On September 02 2015 09:19 phantomfive wrote: I have no idea what that book is about, but I can tell you if I were ever driving through the jungle between a puma and a bear after having a parrot fly up my shirt, I would consider that the epic event of the year. Donald is actually a total badass ![[image loading]](http://img.xrmb2.net/images/218871.jpeg) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
On September 02 2015 21:47 corumjhaelen wrote: Cool stuff ! I actually gifted my gf The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck :D Ooooh, I so love that series! | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5614 Posts
On September 02 2015 03:10 phantomfive wrote: That may be true. However, the fact remains that if capitalists provide value, then getting rid of them will mean either losing value, or replacing them with new capitalists. Marx didn't like that rich people had lots of money and power, and that poor people had a tough life and were being abused. He thought capitalism was the problem, but as we've seen, capitalism has been powerful in lifting people out of poverty. Therefore we can conclude that the problem wasn't capitalism, it was elsewhere. Hey, if you think my comments are shallow, that's fine, but in such cases it's polite to show where they are shallow. Help me learn, so I won't be shallow anymore, it makes us all better (and keeps you from looking like an undergrad). Depends on what you mean by "capitalism". You could argue that capitalism indeed lifted people out of poverty, but it certainly wasn't the laissez-faire capitalism that Friedman advocated. That type of capitalism was not practiced neither in the West when it was developing, nor in China after Deng, so I don't see how it validates Friedman's contentions. | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On September 03 2015 00:39 maybenexttime wrote: Depends on what you mean by "capitalism". You could argue that capitalism indeed lifted people out of poverty, but it certainly wasn't the laissez-faire capitalism that Friedman advocated. That type of capitalism was not practiced neither in the West when it was developing, nor in China after Deng, so I don't see how it validates Friedman's contentions. I don't think you understand what Friedman advocated. Milton Friedman went to China because he was invited by Deng to teach free market principles. Another economist, Gary Becker, said of the people of China [and India] that "The person they are most indebted to for the improvement of their situation is Milton Friedman." | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41IRNOoE7HL.jpg) I'm reading The Second Sex. Second dabbling in feminist writing (first half counted, as it was a very short Bourdieu book). Beauvoir is an excellent writer with an impressive command of the science of her times (even if her views on darwinism seem a bit strange), as well as of philosophy, literary criticism, history (harder to judge here, but still...), psychoanalysis, well, you name it. The book does come as very convincing so far, but possibly dated on some points. I'm far from an absolute fan of existentialism (especially Sartre's), but here it does mix very well with Beauvoir's intent. | ||
| ||
