Well that ought to help.
Remember the Natural Law Party? It is an encouraging sign of progress that they are no more.
Wha tha …
Who are these people?
I like that they acknowledge economics to be crazy superstitious BS. It has seemed obvious to me since… forever.
I must say that the party’s name had me thinking that they would have a completely different platform. “Natural law” sounds like something that Anton LaVey or Boyd Rice would extoll.
No, this one falls under the “suspiciously descriptive names.” Like how “Sweden” or “Brazil” are normal names, but “People’s Democratic Republic of Korea,” “People’s Republic of China,” and “Democratic Republic of the Congo” wouldn’t need all those adjectives if they were actually true.
Or “The United States of America”? This might be why most Merkuns can’t stomach calling it the US.
Mock away, mockers. The mantra worked for me, and now I’m laughing all the way to the bank, praise Bob!
Mock frog? We use no artificial additives or preservatives of any kind!
I like that they acknowledge economics to be crazy superstitious BS. It has seemed obvious to me since… forever.
You mean academic economics or the stupid aristocratic ramblings you see on Bloomberg, Fox, or hear on the BBC? 'Cause the most respected academics have apparently become Commies that need to be discredited while the new monarchists and barbarian conquerers are so very, very much (in love with the idea of) deserving respect.
I come from the academic, Commie kind, which is far more worthwhile to the average person. No, the aristocrats are not going to reward us all for letting them run things. And no, they are no going to secretly reward only you personally (yes YOU - we can see you there!) either for selling everybody else out.
But the conflict still amounts to squabbling over resources. So I gave up on all economics, dismissing them as symptomatic of a pre-scientific social schema. I’d rather invest my time and effort in something that replaces economics entirely.
I successfully applied for a million dollar* grant to compare austerity packages against the supply mantra.
*For dollar, read dong.
I think a big part of the disgust with econ as a field comes from disgust with consumerism and waste. That’s an artifact of oligarchic control of physical product markets, and has little to do with econ except as a failure mode to correct through the reform of exclusive patent rights and other mercantile concessions. Planned obsolescence and other forms of systemic waste (—fraud and abuse, a.k.a. feudal corruption) can be fixed.
The study of economics points the way to examine these problems so long as we don’t confuse the field with the dumbed-down b-school version of econ.
I understand and agree with most of what you are saying here. Yes, thoughtless production/consumption/waste/exploitation cycles are a huge turnoff.
But even the real, deeper concerns of economy I think are still offering only what are better solutions to man-made, self-imposed problems. I would entirely replace economy with ecology. Much of this is essentially just a fundamentally different view of human interactions. I think of a rational society as being, at a inter-personal and structural level to be inherently phenomenal, rather than transactional. It seems far more accurate to me, but it’s a “hard sell” to the vast majority of people who seem very much invested in framing everything about human interaction and society as being of a transaction nature.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
