We've got a bit far from the subject from here... I'll change a bit the title.
Edit: but please go on
Edit2: and anyone can continue with the original subject
Topic: Economics and democracy. Come exchange on theories and litterature. (Read 310 times)
January 21, 2019, 03:20:52 PM
January 21, 2019, 11:41:45 AM
It's simply not possible to characterize such ideas as bullshit.
Well, yes it is ^^
First of all: the global book is bullshit. It doesn't mean there is NOTHING of value in it at all. Of course there a few ideas worth thinking about.
It's exactly like Marx's Das Kapital but in worse. None of Marx or Smith foresaw the revolution we would get thanks to technology but at least Marx thinking was relevant from his point of view. Smith is just an oversimplification of real world resulting in a reasonning so simple it just cannot be true. Hence global bullshit, exactly like Aristote.
Second: Jack of all trades isn't one of them.
The idea of Jack of all trades is more or less stupid:
-It forgets all the good aspects of preventing intense specialization
-It greatly underestimate the ability of important capital to highjack a whole part of an industry hence the power a small number of people can have, limiting his ideal of "fair competition"
-It just doesn't take advertisement into account
I would gladly discuss Smith theories but shouldn't we make a dedicated thread? seems to go a lot of topic compared to original subject.
RE "Jack of all trades is more or less stupid"...
Here is a current day discussion of "mass production."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production
Mass production is a diverse field, but it can generally be contrasted with craft production or distributed manufacturing. Some mass production techniques, such as standardized sizes and production lines, predate the Industrial Revolution by many centuries; however, it was not until the introduction of machine tools and techniques to produce interchangeable parts were developed in the mid 19th century that modern mass production was possible.[2]
Smith's treatise, look at the date. It is the initial comprehensive study of what was then emergent as the industrial revolution.
January 21, 2019, 04:39:20 AM
It's simply not possible to characterize such ideas as bullshit.
Well, yes it is ^^
First of all: the global book is bullshit. It doesn't mean there is NOTHING of value in it at all. Of course there a few ideas worth thinking about.
It's exactly like Marx's Das Kapital but in worse. None of Marx or Smith foresaw the revolution we would get thanks to technology but at least Marx thinking was relevant from his point of view. Smith is just an oversimplification of real world resulting in a reasonning so simple it just cannot be true. Hence global bullshit, exactly like Aristote.
Second: Jack of all trades isn't one of them.
The idea of Jack of all trades is more or less stupid:
-It forgets all the good aspects of preventing intense specialization
-It greatly underestimate the ability of important capital to highjack a whole part of an industry hence the power a small number of people can have, limiting his ideal of "fair competition"
-It just doesn't take advertisement into account
I would gladly discuss Smith theories but shouldn't we make a dedicated thread? seems to go a lot of topic compared to original subject.
January 18, 2019, 08:10:25 PM
....I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit ...
Really? Is that your opinion of Smith's analysis of the way a culture valued the "jack of all trades" held that society back, as opposed to industrial and trade specialization? (reference first 20pp).
Or alternately, maybe you haven't read it. Or perhaps you got choice-fed morsels from socialists...
Well reading you it would seem I indeed haven't read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations... I have no idea what you're talking about, but maybe it's due to translation? I have to confess I never read Smith in English as his work is famous enough to get fully translated. I don't understand the expression "jack of all trades".
"Jack of all trades" is pretty archaic in English today. It refers to a sort of "handyman," but in pre-industrial ages.
https://ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
pp.8 on to 15-20 explains it very well.
Smith pretty much (and correctly) defines the development of "Industrialization" as the development of work specialization to the task level.
On example he uses is a general iron smith might make 200-300 nails a day, but a smith that did nothing but nails would do 800-1000, and often 2000-2500.
It's simply not possible to characterize such ideas as bullshit.
January 18, 2019, 05:31:31 AM
....I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit ...
Really? Is that your opinion of Smith's analysis of the way a culture valued the "jack of all trades" held that society back, as opposed to industrial and trade specialization? (reference first 20pp).
Or alternately, maybe you haven't read it. Or perhaps you got choice-fed morsels from socialists...
Well reading you it would seem I indeed haven't read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations... I have no idea what you're talking about, but maybe it's due to translation? I have to confess I never read Smith in English as his work is famous enough to get fully translated. I don't understand the expression "jack of all trades".
January 17, 2019, 01:05:20 PM
....I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit ...
Really? Is that your opinion of Smith's analysis of the way a culture valued the "jack of all trades" held that society back, as opposed to industrial and trade specialization? (reference first 20pp).
Or alternately, maybe you haven't read it. Or perhaps you got choice-fed morsels from socialists...
January 17, 2019, 10:58:42 AM
My hope is that one day I piss you off enough that you open up a book to prove me wrong.
Impossible. Nobody can prove you wrong. On 3 or 4 years on the forum I've never seen you admit being wrong even once.
So only two possibilities:
-Either you're a motherfucking genius and we're all completely stupid to miss out how brillant your reasonnings are
-Or you're a dumb asshole who doesn't discuss or debate but like to use logical fallacies and fluctuant values to avoid any factual debate
Chose which is most likely.
Well, there's no need to be trading insults on Chomsky. We can simply agree he is the intellectual modern voice of socialist/communist thought and practice. Yet another one of those creatures that love to live with the benefits of the USA, while criticizing it non stop.
You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up.
Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
If I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it?
And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus...
I'm not a liberal. Not at all.You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up.
Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
If I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it?
And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus...
I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit from beginning to the end.
Never even heard of this "Rush Limbaugh" though. Will come back to you if Manufacturing consent was worth it.
And no ones give a shit about Lenin... He was just a leader that's all. Marx is the important one, and Das Kapital is the best example of how brillant he was (and the proof that he was a horrible writter because the only thing I've read which is written worse than Das Kapital is probably Mein Kampf xD)
Thanks for the advice on the book. Have ordered it and will update you once I've finished it.
Or option 3, you are exceptionally ignorant. You will notice not everyone debates with me. I am sure a lot of people disagree with me. The difference between you and them is they will admit their own ignorance and not pretend to know more, even if they don't like what I have to say. Also I usually don't bother taking up debates about subjects I know nothing about, so I could see how you would think I am a supergenius as a result
For you though, in your mind the fact that you disagree is equivalent to knowing what you are talking about, and should be given equal measure, just because you suck up air or something.
January 17, 2019, 04:09:01 AM
My hope is that one day I piss you off enough that you open up a book to prove me wrong.
Impossible. Nobody can prove you wrong. On 3 or 4 years on the forum I've never seen you admit being wrong even once.
So only two possibilities:
-Either you're a motherfucking genius and we're all completely stupid to miss out how brillant your reasonnings are
-Or you're a dumb asshole who doesn't discuss or debate but like to use logical fallacies and fluctuant values to avoid any factual debate
Chose which is most likely.
Well, there's no need to be trading insults on Chomsky. We can simply agree he is the intellectual modern voice of socialist/communist thought and practice. Yet another one of those creatures that love to live with the benefits of the USA, while criticizing it non stop.
You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up.
Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
If I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it?
And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus...
I'm not a liberal. Not at all.You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up.
Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
If I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it?
And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus...
I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit from beginning to the end.
Never even heard of this "Rush Limbaugh" though. Will come back to you if Manufacturing consent was worth it.
And no ones give a shit about Lenin... He was just a leader that's all. Marx is the important one, and Das Kapital is the best example of how brillant he was (and the proof that he was a horrible writter because the only thing I've read which is written worse than Das Kapital is probably Mein Kampf xD)
Thanks for the advice on the book. Have ordered it and will update you once I've finished it.
January 16, 2019, 08:19:07 PM
Here we are again, you want to be right but you don't want to do any of the work required to get there. Try "Manufacturing Consent", that is if you can manage to read a whole book without bursting into flames.
Could you fuck off please?
Spendelus is saying "go read this guy"
I'm asking "what would you advise me to read first as he has written a lot"
How is that anything but being considerate towards his knowledge?? Or not doing the work? I should read everything he has written before openning my mouth?
Shut the fuck up moron. You're pissing me off so much...
No, I think I will fuck on, thank you. Your highly opinionated self righteous brand of ideology is dangerous to society, and people like me are here to make a desperate attempt to motivate you to educate yourself before the collective misguided efforts of people like you result in societal collapse, and civil war followed by global totalitarian dictatorship. I am sure you don't believe it but I am trying to do you a favor.
You stomp your feet and cry and demand to be treated like an equal, but you never bring anything to the table. You make arrogant presumptuous comments, he provides you an author, and then you demand further spoon feeding. Maybe he should make airplane noises too while he does it? The fact that you don't recognize that understating these things takes a lot of work is on its face insulting, let alone the fact that you walk around pretending as if you have an equal level of understanding while spewing your self righteous accusations and presumptions.
My hope is that one day I piss you off enough that you open up a book to prove me wrong.
January 16, 2019, 07:14:17 PM
It is not an arrogant view, it is a plain fact.
Manipulation ie. rigged elections, shady polls, media control = less power to the citizens = more power to the elite minority
There is a difference between less and not at all!
Seems a bit extreme to say democracy doesn't work at all for me... But hey who am I to judge?
Yes, I only read the part where m0lgiE quoted, I didn't read the unquoted statement about democracy being the worst form of government.
January 16, 2019, 07:02:39 PM
Here we are again, you want to be right but you don't want to do any of the work required to get there. Try "Manufacturing Consent", that is if you can manage to read a whole book without bursting into flames.
Could you fuck off please?
Spendelus is saying "go read this guy"
I'm asking "what would you advise me to read first as he has written a lot"
How is that anything but being considerate towards his knowledge?? Or not doing the work? I should read everything he has written before openning my mouth?
Shut the fuck up moron. You're pissing me off so much...
Well, there's no need to be trading insults on Chomsky. We can simply agree he is the intellectual modern voice of socialist/communist thought and practice. Yet another one of those creatures that love to live with the benefits of the USA, while criticizing it non stop.
You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up.
Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
If I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it?
And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus...
January 16, 2019, 06:08:08 PM
Here we are again, you want to be right but you don't want to do any of the work required to get there. Try "Manufacturing Consent", that is if you can manage to read a whole book without bursting into flames.
Could you fuck off please?
Spendelus is saying "go read this guy"
I'm asking "what would you advise me to read first as he has written a lot"
How is that anything but being considerate towards his knowledge?? Or not doing the work? I should read everything he has written before openning my mouth?
Shut the fuck up moron. You're pissing me off so much...
January 16, 2019, 04:09:20 PM
It is not an arrogant view, it is a plain fact.
Manipulation ie. rigged elections, shady polls, media control = less power to the citizens = more power to the elite minority
There is a difference between less and not at all!
Seems a bit extreme to say democracy doesn't work at all for me... But hey who am I to judge?
January 16, 2019, 01:31:10 PM
I think that without respecting the voice of the minority, the majority can not pursue their intentions. When it is different, it is not a democracy.
January 16, 2019, 01:24:04 PM
As soon as manipulation works, and it does, then "democracy" does not mean "Power to the citizens."
That's an incredibly elitist and arrogant point of view.
The people are too stupid to be able to govern themselves?
I'm not sure what was wrong with what he said m0gliE, could you elaborate on it?
It is not an arrogant view, it is a plain fact.
Manipulation ie. rigged elections, shady polls, media control = less power to the citizens = more power to the elite minority
January 16, 2019, 01:15:33 PM
That's the philosophical and practical basis of the US Democratic Party. Read the writings of Chomsky, as I suggested. It's all there.
And yes, it's incredibly elitist and arrogant.
And yes, it's incredibly elitist and arrogant.
Would you have any precise examples?
I've read a few articles/extracts and it does seem interesting as the man seems to have quite a real "outside the box" thinking, but he just wrote far too much things for me to read it all right now xD
I'd appreciate your advice on the 2-3 best essais of the man.
Here we are again, you want to be right but you don't want to do any of the work required to get there. Try "Manufacturing Consent", that is if you can manage to read a whole book without bursting into flames.
January 16, 2019, 08:07:00 AM
That's the philosophical and practical basis of the US Democratic Party. Read the writings of Chomsky, as I suggested. It's all there.
And yes, it's incredibly elitist and arrogant.
And yes, it's incredibly elitist and arrogant.
Would you have any precise examples?
I've read a few articles/extracts and it does seem interesting as the man seems to have quite a real "outside the box" thinking, but he just wrote far too much things for me to read it all right now xD
I'd appreciate your advice on the 2-3 best essais of the man.
January 16, 2019, 08:00:51 AM
As soon as manipulation works, and it does, then "democracy" does not mean "Power to the citizens."
That's an incredibly elitist and arrogant point of view.
The people are too stupid to be able to govern themselves?
That's the philosophical and practical basis of the US Democratic Party. Read the writings of Chomsky, as I suggested. It's all there.
And yes, it's incredibly elitist and arrogant.
January 16, 2019, 05:11:04 AM
As soon as manipulation works, and it does, then "democracy" does not mean "Power to the citizens."
That's an incredibly elitist and arrogant point of view.
The people are too stupid to be able to govern themselves?
January 16, 2019, 04:28:50 AM
I believe in true democracy but I don't think it should be done on a large scale. IT should really be community based and each community should be autonomous. That solves all of those issues because its easy for jews to leave a community that hates them. Its not so easy if the whole large country hates them.
This is more like the model they have in Rojava. I like what they have in Switzerland but would not like Democracy to get bigger than a US State. A government the size of the US, India, or Brazil is just nuts.
This is more like the model they have in Rojava. I like what they have in Switzerland but would not like Democracy to get bigger than a US State. A government the size of the US, India, or Brazil is just nuts.
The problem being that making smaller states make you lacking mutualization for once, meaning you lose a lot of power and potential by scaling everything down. Plus you WILL create tremendeous inequalities which can only result in conflicts.
Look at what countries were like in Europe under feudalism. The smaller the nations, the more numerous the wars.
January 16, 2019, 03:00:04 AM
I believe in true democracy but I don't think it should be done on a large scale. IT should really be community based and each community should be autonomous. That solves all of those issues because its easy for jews to leave a community that hates them. Its not so easy if the whole large country hates them.
This is more like the model they have in Rojava. I like what they have in Switzerland but would not like Democracy to get bigger than a US State. A government the size of the US, India, or Brazil is just nuts.
This is more like the model they have in Rojava. I like what they have in Switzerland but would not like Democracy to get bigger than a US State. A government the size of the US, India, or Brazil is just nuts.
January 15, 2019, 01:19:32 PM
So I've ran into tons of people who talk like they have the moral high ground because they are peaceful citizens valuing the democracy contrary to the violent anarchist I am.
Fact is that I consider myself an iron solid democrat.
Precision, democrat here in the litteral term of "pro democracy". Nothing to do with the republican/democrat USA system.
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.
Now most people I see who say they value "democracy" also value the arbitrary limits that have been put on most occidental democracy. Is there anyone here who consider those limits shouldn't be there?
What I mean is that a complete democracy is the law of the majority, without any restrictions. Except maybe the notion of "majority" as 51% is often seem as a "soft limit" and we can arguably put it higher at something like 80%. So if 85% of the citizens agree on something, I believe it should be done, no matter what is the "it".
"It" can completely be "leaving the EU".
But "it" can also be kill all the jews.
And "it" can also be kill me :/
It's not what I want but I believe that if 85% of the population claims it, then it should happen.
Am I the only one thinking that way?
Fact is that I consider myself an iron solid democrat.
Precision, democrat here in the litteral term of "pro democracy". Nothing to do with the republican/democrat USA system.
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.
Now most people I see who say they value "democracy" also value the arbitrary limits that have been put on most occidental democracy. Is there anyone here who consider those limits shouldn't be there?
What I mean is that a complete democracy is the law of the majority, without any restrictions. Except maybe the notion of "majority" as 51% is often seem as a "soft limit" and we can arguably put it higher at something like 80%. So if 85% of the citizens agree on something, I believe it should be done, no matter what is the "it".
"It" can completely be "leaving the EU".
But "it" can also be kill all the jews.
And "it" can also be kill me :/
It's not what I want but I believe that if 85% of the population claims it, then it should happen.
Am I the only one thinking that way?
In my opinion, human rights should be superior to any form of government. So even if 80% of the population wants to kill the remaining 20% for simply being Jewish, it should not happen due to universal human rights.
January 15, 2019, 12:49:16 PM
....
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.....
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.....
Not the best, but possibly the worst. Look at Noam Chomsky's discussions about how to manipulate pure democracies, so that the votes produce the "best decisions" as previously decided by the elite.
As soon as manipulation works, and it does, then "democracy" does not mean "Power to the citizens."
January 15, 2019, 12:13:36 PM
Don't you know all the people who WERE classical democrats are right-wing extremist Nazis now?
January 15, 2019, 07:21:00 AM
So I've ran into tons of people who talk like they have the moral high ground because they are peaceful citizens valuing the democracy contrary to the violent anarchist I am.
Fact is that I consider myself an iron solid democrat.
Precision, democrat here in the litteral term of "pro democracy". Nothing to do with the republican/democrat USA system.
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.
Now most people I see who say they value "democracy" also value the arbitrary limits that have been put on most occidental democracy. Is there anyone here who consider those limits shouldn't be there?
What I mean is that a complete democracy is the law of the majority, without any restrictions. Except maybe the notion of "majority" as 51% is often seem as a "soft limit" and we can arguably put it higher at something like 80%. So if 85% of the citizens agree on something, I believe it should be done, no matter what is the "it".
"It" can completely be "leaving the EU".
But "it" can also be kill all the jews.
And "it" can also be kill me :/
It's not what I want but I believe that if 85% of the population claims it, then it should happen.
Am I the only one thinking that way?
Fact is that I consider myself an iron solid democrat.
Precision, democrat here in the litteral term of "pro democracy". Nothing to do with the republican/democrat USA system.
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.
Now most people I see who say they value "democracy" also value the arbitrary limits that have been put on most occidental democracy. Is there anyone here who consider those limits shouldn't be there?
What I mean is that a complete democracy is the law of the majority, without any restrictions. Except maybe the notion of "majority" as 51% is often seem as a "soft limit" and we can arguably put it higher at something like 80%. So if 85% of the citizens agree on something, I believe it should be done, no matter what is the "it".
"It" can completely be "leaving the EU".
But "it" can also be kill all the jews.
And "it" can also be kill me :/
It's not what I want but I believe that if 85% of the population claims it, then it should happen.
Am I the only one thinking that way?
Jump to: