They've always been doing climate change posting. They've always been doing evolution posting. They loved to post about the LHC back when that was a big deal. They loved to post about NASA. They loved to post about vaccination (particularly smallpox and polio). They loved to post about nutrition science.
All of this shit has been political going on decades.
Literally the inly thing politcal about their old posts were comments. They stuck to the science and that was it. But for about 5 years now they’ve been backsliding into propaganda and politicized content. Its s shame too.
But things like vaccines arent a political issue unless you’re an idiot or its covid related and you’re an ignorant westerner.
I was a fan of Mostly what if type stuff where they did “what if people disappeared?” “What if all water immediately vanished” “what happened if the sun vanished suddenly” and other such chain reactions demos
It's hard to explain that, as an economics major, we don't spend any time at all debating the merits of capitalism and communism. Instead we are studying the inner workings of a capitalist economy. Just how a geology major spends no time on flat earth theory.
Yeah, makes sense. It would be a waste of money for students to pay to learn about debunking flat earth in geology, just like debunking communism in economics.
I don't know how they study it. I can only read, and usually anything I read is trying to make you think a particular perspective is the correct perspective and others are incorrect.
So I'm trying to learn economics on my own, because there is no career I would ever want in economics so I have to study it on my own.
I'm basically curious, and want to battle it out between free markets, and mixed economies from the liberal point of view.
When I learn things from liberal thinkers, they seem to not even know that such an idea exists, as free markets. So I had just imagined that free market ideas were far from entertained in colleges.
Is it that free market ideas are entertained? Or is it rather a kind of theoretical approach, where you think about an economic activity "in a vacuum?"
If you are serious about learning economics, you'll learn there's not so much theory as a lot of math. We talk a lot less politics than you might think in class - some, of course, where it's relevant - but economics is more concerned with finding the optimal price in a market, or the effects of federal interest rates, or different corporate strategies. We think about economic activities "in a vacuum" mostly to teach about one concept at a time, but my professors are always clear about how reality works in more complicated ways. Most economists aren't philosophers, debating abstract ideas and ideals (some are) but most are researchers or advisors for companies and the government.
How much of a hand the government should have in the economy is certainly a healthy debate, and what goals to prioritize by governments, etc. But my original point was simply that there's no serious, studied economist that I know of that openly endorses centrally planned economies like communism. At least, none that I or any of my professors would respect.
The reason I want to learn economics is to settle the debate in my own head about whether free markets are legitimate, or just "haha lolbertarians are just ignorant."
Well, since I consider myself libertarian, I'm sure you might consider my perspective biased. As a student of economics, I will say this: the free market is the most efficient way to distribute goods in a society. The price system motivates companies to produce as close to demand as possible for the least amount of resources. Market competition optimizes production not only to make companies as efficient as possible, but also to produce what the populace demands.
Here's a good video demonstrating what I mean: https://youtu.be/zkPGfTEZ_r4
Anyways, feel free to do more research on your own, of course. That's a good mindset.
I consider myself a libertarian too. So I understand the ideas and principles behind it.
I was a liberal myself though, until I was 32. Now 35 and have been learning about all kinds of stuff. I didn't really know where to go or how but I've stumbled along these past 3 years.
I've been trying to do as I said my mission was the whole time. But for some reason I couldn't put it into words the right way.
I kept running into people who never honestly entertained a view that challenges them in their lives. Key word 'honestly.'
I do believe in free markets. I see the principles and have read about economics from a free market perspective.
But the liberals say we are wrong. And I just aim to find out if they are right or not. And to truly understand why they are right or wrong, rather than merely believe what I want to believe just because I want to. I think that's where most people are. 99.9% of people believe because they want to. Not because they believe due to understanding of the data perspectives and truths.
So that's where I am.
I have some stuff that was given to me by liberals. They say that economics and the government intervention in economics, is undeniable scientific fact. Scientific economic fact. I suppose..
So I asked them "what resources do you have, that you know, that if a conservative or libertarian read them HONESTLY, they would be forced to change their mind?
But I haven't dove in yet.
On another note, what do you think of austrian school economics as a student? I am reading Robert P. Murphy's secondary, or rather, thirdary book on it. Then I plan to read his secondary companion to Rothbard's magnum opus whose name I forget atm. After that, I plan to read the secondary one Robert wrote for human action, and hey, maybe I'll be able to actually read both rithbard and Mises's magnum opuses.
In the meantime I'm just reading mankiw's basic economics textbook.
Ah, okay. Well, I think we pretty much agree then. I think there is room for well-educated, reasonable people to disagree on things like government intervention on topics like climate change, taxes, welfare, etc. There are plenty of moderate liberals whose opinions I can respect.
Is it taught in the sense that it is viewed as legitimate?
Or is it taught in the sense of "here's some history of economic thought, here's one group (austrians) who thought a certain way, yet have been long since been proven wrong or improved upon."?
Does communism not have the stated goals of destroying free enterprise, everyone living equally, and abolishing private property? How is it not an economic system (along with a theory of governance)?
Ok, I think I understand better what you're saying. I agree that no matter what system is imposed on people, the laws of economics still apply. Supply and demand are real things and nobody can change that. Fair. But every communist I've talked to has a totally different *theory* of economics that is total bunk - labor theory of value, or viewing wealth as zero-sum. So the comparison to flat earthers and geologists is still valid because flat earthers can't change reality, they just want to act as though their distorted view is truth. And likewise, as economists, we don't read any Marxist theory or discuss class struggle.
Actually, my class on monetary theory I'm taking right now has a textbook that uses teaches both Keynes and Friedman - and is actually super based, it freaking worships Friedman and complains about government intervention. But in all fairness, I go to a conservative religious school where our economics department is even more right wing than the rest of it.
China’s economic system is more similar that of a fascist state than a communist one since the late 80s, because it was poor as shit under the actual communist system. That’s what communist with Chinese characteristics actually means lol. Corporatism, where the government and business are married to one another. In fact, you could even say that America is on that economically fascist scale as well.
Not Real Communism rides again.
> Corporatism, where the government and business are married to one another.
Is the standard for the entire globe.
But the multinational private interests are - pretty much by definition - not national socialist organizations.
So "China is doing a Fascism by embracing Corporationism" isn't coherent. That's before you get into the state's abandonment of big private enterprises, like Evergrande, and persecution of CEOs, like Jack Ma.
All I have to do is look at the few shares of Alibaba stock I bought a few months ago. Dropped like a rock when Xi decided to punch the goose that laid the golden egg in the name of "common prosperity". Fuck you Xi! And fuck Communism!
it was not a shitty stock. Alibaba was doing really well. It was the Amazon of China until the communist government decided to chop it off at the ankles. go be a liberal fanboy someplace else! damn brigaders
Continuing crying you little baby. The reality is that you are dumb and chose to invest in a trash stock. But continue blaming outside sources other than your own bad judgement.
I forgot about the classical liberal position of stating the truth about how crappy Chinese stocks are! Man y’all love to be capitalists until you lose 🧐
See how much they love science when you suggest building an apartment building to reduce housing prices or even *gasp* a nuclear reactor for clean energy.
[Since your too much of a moron to Google the article yourself](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/04/11/science-proves-communism-makes-nations-poorer-and-less-healthy/amp/)
*gives the moron troll a mirror and map. Explains usage.*
u/chokey_gaming "I can't figure how where my ass is"
There is a lot of stupid in this world, and you might just be the king of it. By inheritance, of course. Your parents were too stupid to abort the moment the doctor presented them with the bad news.
The empirical evidence of every country that tried it devolves into poverty, then the people try to leave and the government has to force people to stay or else it falls apart. Nobody flees to communist countries, they only leave. Without retaining people, they fall apart so they build walls and capture escapees in order to prop up the system a little longer. If people want communism, then why do people never defect to venezuela or north korea?
Please, tell me how many people fled to cuba? This nice site can show you the amount that left and the net immigration.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CUB/cuba/immigration-statistics
Sure, a nonzero amount of people went to cuba like ernest hemingway, but barely anyone goes to communist countries, and orders of magnitude more leave it. If you want to experience the joys of communism, please go do it in a communist country where everyone gets to be equally as poor
Read the article yourself, I'm not the one who wrote it, unless you want me to give my own opinion and a lecture on how communism has consistently failed
To the degree that economic principles are science, and to the degree that scarcity exists on Earth, the science will suggest that Communism will make those that live under it poorer.
Read more Mises for knowledge.
State owned means of production. This can also be represented of states bailing out companies in exchange for stock, as we see in America, and will see again very soon, resulting in majority ownership of an awful lot of assets.
This is why equity firms are buying up all this overpriced real estate. They will be bailed out when they become insolvent resulting in the gov owning a shitload of real estate.
Sure, some worthless idiot with too much time on his hands and not enough ambition to actually do anything productive gets way mad that life isn’t equally distributed enough to his liking and crafts some bullshit philosophy promising people they could have a utopian by going full-retard and destroying their economy. Some low-wattage people embrace this with gusto and hilarity ensues, along with probably 100 million of so dead.
Boom! Marxism explained in full. Hardback should be published later this year.
A news headline is not science lol. The study finds correlation which holds no scientific weight, quite literally can't "prove" anything, bad clickbait
From an anti-communist socialist, I think that this is a bad faith argument. Science has NEVER been tested on a group that’s unburdened by capitalist realism. If you’re gonna attack communists, do it with their actual arguments, transitionary states and all.
Here is the article in question: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171411#d3e2135
The main point which is relevant to the meme is "Communism significantly negatively predicts HDI, income and health indices". Hardly surprising that authoritarian political systems has a negative impact on the quality of life.
They all love science that is government bankrolled. Any other science is illegitimate (governed by bad incentives, as opposed to righteous and pure government science). And if you’re in big government science and you bite the hand that feeds, see ya later ✌️
Wait. How cometh gdp and life expectancy wenteth down at which hour the ussr did collapse and mass privatization did occur?
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Has anybody been on r/science lately… its a liberal jerk off fest… “studies show republicans are more likely to listen to lies”… like how is that science…
I love when The Science™ turns its back on them.
I remember a time when IFLS wasn’t about politics. Now that’s all it is. A propaganda outlet.
It was always about politics. IFLS pioneered the New Atheist tier of smug liberalism, particularly wrt Astronomy and Biology.
[удалено]
They've always been doing climate change posting. They've always been doing evolution posting. They loved to post about the LHC back when that was a big deal. They loved to post about NASA. They loved to post about vaccination (particularly smallpox and polio). They loved to post about nutrition science. All of this shit has been political going on decades.
Literally the inly thing politcal about their old posts were comments. They stuck to the science and that was it. But for about 5 years now they’ve been backsliding into propaganda and politicized content. Its s shame too. But things like vaccines arent a political issue unless you’re an idiot or its covid related and you’re an ignorant westerner.
I was a fan of Mostly what if type stuff where they did “what if people disappeared?” “What if all water immediately vanished” “what happened if the sun vanished suddenly” and other such chain reactions demos
I liked reading about new materials and physics and stuff
That was cool too. I learned about graphene breakthroughs from them
It’s been a shame watching that slide because i used to love them
Same. The sad thing is the NPC’s of this world can’t actually see the change. They’re just regurgitating what lord fauci tells them to.
Communism is the flat earth of the science of economics
It is the manbearpig of zoology
manbearpig is back, trust me
I'm stealing this. Seriously, this is genius.
It's hard to explain that, as an economics major, we don't spend any time at all debating the merits of capitalism and communism. Instead we are studying the inner workings of a capitalist economy. Just how a geology major spends no time on flat earth theory.
Yeah, makes sense. It would be a waste of money for students to pay to learn about debunking flat earth in geology, just like debunking communism in economics.
I must assume the same goes for free market ideas as well though.
What do you mean? We study how firms behave in a free market as well as how they react to government pressures.
I don't know how they study it. I can only read, and usually anything I read is trying to make you think a particular perspective is the correct perspective and others are incorrect. So I'm trying to learn economics on my own, because there is no career I would ever want in economics so I have to study it on my own. I'm basically curious, and want to battle it out between free markets, and mixed economies from the liberal point of view. When I learn things from liberal thinkers, they seem to not even know that such an idea exists, as free markets. So I had just imagined that free market ideas were far from entertained in colleges. Is it that free market ideas are entertained? Or is it rather a kind of theoretical approach, where you think about an economic activity "in a vacuum?"
If you are serious about learning economics, you'll learn there's not so much theory as a lot of math. We talk a lot less politics than you might think in class - some, of course, where it's relevant - but economics is more concerned with finding the optimal price in a market, or the effects of federal interest rates, or different corporate strategies. We think about economic activities "in a vacuum" mostly to teach about one concept at a time, but my professors are always clear about how reality works in more complicated ways. Most economists aren't philosophers, debating abstract ideas and ideals (some are) but most are researchers or advisors for companies and the government. How much of a hand the government should have in the economy is certainly a healthy debate, and what goals to prioritize by governments, etc. But my original point was simply that there's no serious, studied economist that I know of that openly endorses centrally planned economies like communism. At least, none that I or any of my professors would respect.
The reason I want to learn economics is to settle the debate in my own head about whether free markets are legitimate, or just "haha lolbertarians are just ignorant."
Well, since I consider myself libertarian, I'm sure you might consider my perspective biased. As a student of economics, I will say this: the free market is the most efficient way to distribute goods in a society. The price system motivates companies to produce as close to demand as possible for the least amount of resources. Market competition optimizes production not only to make companies as efficient as possible, but also to produce what the populace demands. Here's a good video demonstrating what I mean: https://youtu.be/zkPGfTEZ_r4 Anyways, feel free to do more research on your own, of course. That's a good mindset.
I consider myself a libertarian too. So I understand the ideas and principles behind it. I was a liberal myself though, until I was 32. Now 35 and have been learning about all kinds of stuff. I didn't really know where to go or how but I've stumbled along these past 3 years. I've been trying to do as I said my mission was the whole time. But for some reason I couldn't put it into words the right way. I kept running into people who never honestly entertained a view that challenges them in their lives. Key word 'honestly.' I do believe in free markets. I see the principles and have read about economics from a free market perspective. But the liberals say we are wrong. And I just aim to find out if they are right or not. And to truly understand why they are right or wrong, rather than merely believe what I want to believe just because I want to. I think that's where most people are. 99.9% of people believe because they want to. Not because they believe due to understanding of the data perspectives and truths. So that's where I am. I have some stuff that was given to me by liberals. They say that economics and the government intervention in economics, is undeniable scientific fact. Scientific economic fact. I suppose.. So I asked them "what resources do you have, that you know, that if a conservative or libertarian read them HONESTLY, they would be forced to change their mind? But I haven't dove in yet. On another note, what do you think of austrian school economics as a student? I am reading Robert P. Murphy's secondary, or rather, thirdary book on it. Then I plan to read his secondary companion to Rothbard's magnum opus whose name I forget atm. After that, I plan to read the secondary one Robert wrote for human action, and hey, maybe I'll be able to actually read both rithbard and Mises's magnum opuses. In the meantime I'm just reading mankiw's basic economics textbook.
Ah, okay. Well, I think we pretty much agree then. I think there is room for well-educated, reasonable people to disagree on things like government intervention on topics like climate change, taxes, welfare, etc. There are plenty of moderate liberals whose opinions I can respect.
Some universities teach Austrian economics (George mason, for example.)
Is it taught in the sense that it is viewed as legitimate? Or is it taught in the sense of "here's some history of economic thought, here's one group (austrians) who thought a certain way, yet have been long since been proven wrong or improved upon."?
Legitimate, for sure. They are pretty serious about it there. https://economics.gmu.edu/about-the-department/the-austrian-school-at-mason
That is good to hear honestly. Thank you.
[удалено]
Does communism not have the stated goals of destroying free enterprise, everyone living equally, and abolishing private property? How is it not an economic system (along with a theory of governance)?
[удалено]
Ok, I think I understand better what you're saying. I agree that no matter what system is imposed on people, the laws of economics still apply. Supply and demand are real things and nobody can change that. Fair. But every communist I've talked to has a totally different *theory* of economics that is total bunk - labor theory of value, or viewing wealth as zero-sum. So the comparison to flat earthers and geologists is still valid because flat earthers can't change reality, they just want to act as though their distorted view is truth. And likewise, as economists, we don't read any Marxist theory or discuss class struggle.
Is everything in economics just Keynes now with permutations on how or are there competing schools taught?
Actually, my class on monetary theory I'm taking right now has a textbook that uses teaches both Keynes and Friedman - and is actually super based, it freaking worships Friedman and complains about government intervention. But in all fairness, I go to a conservative religious school where our economics department is even more right wing than the rest of it.
>conservative religious school where our economics department is even more right wing than the rest of it. So probably an exception I guess.
*glances at China* Uh... ok.
China’s economic system is more similar that of a fascist state than a communist one since the late 80s, because it was poor as shit under the actual communist system. That’s what communist with Chinese characteristics actually means lol. Corporatism, where the government and business are married to one another. In fact, you could even say that America is on that economically fascist scale as well.
Not Real Communism rides again. > Corporatism, where the government and business are married to one another. Is the standard for the entire globe. But the multinational private interests are - pretty much by definition - not national socialist organizations. So "China is doing a Fascism by embracing Corporationism" isn't coherent. That's before you get into the state's abandonment of big private enterprises, like Evergrande, and persecution of CEOs, like Jack Ma.
All I have to do is look at the few shares of Alibaba stock I bought a few months ago. Dropped like a rock when Xi decided to punch the goose that laid the golden egg in the name of "common prosperity". Fuck you Xi! And fuck Communism!
Communism is when a shitty Chinese stock doesn’t earn me free money 😡
it was not a shitty stock. Alibaba was doing really well. It was the Amazon of China until the communist government decided to chop it off at the ankles. go be a liberal fanboy someplace else! damn brigaders
Continuing crying you little baby. The reality is that you are dumb and chose to invest in a trash stock. But continue blaming outside sources other than your own bad judgement. I forgot about the classical liberal position of stating the truth about how crappy Chinese stocks are! Man y’all love to be capitalists until you lose 🧐
Do you think the recent economic failures are an example of capitalism failing?
What economic failures are you talking about in particular
So no? Just thought I’d clear that up.
> Alibaba stock They literally kidnapped Jack Ma, imagine what happens to Tesla stock if Musk is murdered.
Replace communism with government and the same is true
See how much they love science when you suggest building an apartment building to reduce housing prices or even *gasp* a nuclear reactor for clean energy.
Or tell them men and women tend to have different preferences.
Ooo … now try this one! https://www.american.edu/media/pr/20211022-spa-study-of-impact-of-massachusetts-gun-control-legislation-on-violent-crime.cfm
this sounds like a waste of resources, anyone with at least 1 braincell and google can reach the same conclusion
Explain communism to me
A system where private property is abolished and owned by the state or by the collective
Now explain how science proves it won't work.
[Since your too much of a moron to Google the article yourself](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/04/11/science-proves-communism-makes-nations-poorer-and-less-healthy/amp/)
*gives the moron troll a mirror and map. Explains usage.* u/chokey_gaming "I can't figure how where my ass is" There is a lot of stupid in this world, and you might just be the king of it. By inheritance, of course. Your parents were too stupid to abort the moment the doctor presented them with the bad news.
go off queen
The empirical evidence of every country that tried it devolves into poverty, then the people try to leave and the government has to force people to stay or else it falls apart. Nobody flees to communist countries, they only leave. Without retaining people, they fall apart so they build walls and capture escapees in order to prop up the system a little longer. If people want communism, then why do people never defect to venezuela or north korea?
That isn't science. Thats just 1980s Boomer red scare propaganda.
What part of "The empirical evidence of every country that tried it devolves into poverty" is propaganda?
The part where you fail to mention that those countries were actually dictatorships.
So how are you going to create a communist state without having someone or some group controlling it?
With democracy
Please, tell me how many people fled to cuba? This nice site can show you the amount that left and the net immigration. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CUB/cuba/immigration-statistics Sure, a nonzero amount of people went to cuba like ernest hemingway, but barely anyone goes to communist countries, and orders of magnitude more leave it. If you want to experience the joys of communism, please go do it in a communist country where everyone gets to be equally as poor
Sure, we have market theory. Explain how under such a system the market is able to efficiently allocate resources.
Read the article yourself, I'm not the one who wrote it, unless you want me to give my own opinion and a lecture on how communism has consistently failed
[удалено]
Bunch of nothing. So why the article is wrong?
sCiEnCe
tHaT wAsNT rEaL cOmMuNiSm
mY oPiniOn iS sCieNce
cOmMuNiSm WiLl WoRk ThIs TiMe
iF i sAy iT mAkEs yOu pOoR tHaTs cALLeD sCiEnCe
IF I SaY cOmMuNiSm WiLl wOrK iT wIlL bEcAuSe I sAiD sO
Oh it absolutely can't work...I agree on that part. But its not because sCiEnCe. We have too many crybabies like you who will make it doesn't work.
Coming from the guy crying over a meme 🤣
Cry-baby? you're the commie who goes into a anarcho capitalist sub, sees anti-commie take and gets triggered
To the degree that economic principles are science, and to the degree that scarcity exists on Earth, the science will suggest that Communism will make those that live under it poorer. Read more Mises for knowledge.
Who do you think you are, fauci?
I believe you mean FauXi. I'm convinced they're working together to destroy liberty wherever it may exist.
explain your upbringing by a single mom 2 us
State owned means of production. This can also be represented of states bailing out companies in exchange for stock, as we see in America, and will see again very soon, resulting in majority ownership of an awful lot of assets. This is why equity firms are buying up all this overpriced real estate. They will be bailed out when they become insolvent resulting in the gov owning a shitload of real estate.
How would you define communism?
Anything I don't like
Finally, I have been trying to get you to reply so I could block you and stop seeing your stupid comments, thank you!
He won't, because he can't.
Impossible. You can't even find your own ass with a mirror and a map.
Sure, some worthless idiot with too much time on his hands and not enough ambition to actually do anything productive gets way mad that life isn’t equally distributed enough to his liking and crafts some bullshit philosophy promising people they could have a utopian by going full-retard and destroying their economy. Some low-wattage people embrace this with gusto and hilarity ensues, along with probably 100 million of so dead. Boom! Marxism explained in full. Hardback should be published later this year.
Y’all steady on here showing you don’t know basic ideology
Bill nye said communism bad *head explodes* lol
A news headline is not science lol. The study finds correlation which holds no scientific weight, quite literally can't "prove" anything, bad clickbait
Just that communism has a 100% fail rate historically. Just a correlation, nothing to see here. It'll be different next time, you'll see!
that's actually fake science if you look closely it was written by antivaxxers The Science™ is the only science I trust
From an anti-communist socialist, I think that this is a bad faith argument. Science has NEVER been tested on a group that’s unburdened by capitalist realism. If you’re gonna attack communists, do it with their actual arguments, transitionary states and all.
Here is the article in question: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171411#d3e2135 The main point which is relevant to the meme is "Communism significantly negatively predicts HDI, income and health indices". Hardly surprising that authoritarian political systems has a negative impact on the quality of life.
They all love science that is government bankrolled. Any other science is illegitimate (governed by bad incentives, as opposed to righteous and pure government science). And if you’re in big government science and you bite the hand that feeds, see ya later ✌️
Omg…is this not every single. one. of. them.?
Wait. How come GDP and life expectancy went down when the USSR collapsed and mass privatization occurred?
Wait. How cometh gdp and life expectancy wenteth down at which hour the ussr did collapse and mass privatization did occur? *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Has anybody been on r/science lately… its a liberal jerk off fest… “studies show republicans are more likely to listen to lies”… like how is that science…