News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Quo Vadis GOP?

Started by Syt, January 09, 2021, 07:46:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

But it is self-evident from the tweet that is NOT the definition she is using for socialism, since there are no "health care schemes" Democrats have proposed would involve the "control of the means of health care production" by states.

The schemes that Democrats have proposed or enacted and she has gone on record opposing are Obamacare (Stefanik voted to repeal) and Medicare for All (she opposes).

There is no way these plans can be characterized as socialist and yet Medicare and Medicaid not.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

alfred russel

Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 12:21:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 09:11:05 AM
If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.

Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Nope, you are conceding the one side of the coin, while insisting the other is fine.

If medicare and medicaid are not socialist, then neither is medicare for all, and hence the tweet talking about "socialist medical care" make no sense, and is moronic.

Either they are all socialist, or none of them are - either way, the tweet is idiotic.

The tweet made no reference to medicare for all. It only said we must reject socialist healthcare schemes.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 12:32:25 PM
But it is self-evident from the tweet that is NOT the definition she is using for socialism, since there are no "health care schemes" Democrats have proposed would involve the "control of the means of health care production" by states.

The schemes that Democrats have proposed or enacted and she has gone on record opposing are Obamacare (Stefanik voted to repeal) and Medicare for All (she opposes).

There is no way these plans can be characterized as socialist and yet Medicare and Medicaid not.

She didn't reference democrats. She only said we must reject socialist healthcare schemes, which whether or not proposed by democrats, do exist.

To my knowledge I've never heard Stefanik speak and I think that tweet is the first thing I've read that she has written. She may be a terrible and vile person, and I readily accept she has said many hypocritical and evil things if you want to assert she has done so. I was only commenting on the logical consistency of her tweet being held up for ridicule.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

grumbler

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

It's either that, or concede that he's wrong.  Guess which one he will choose.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Berkut

Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2021, 02:30:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

It's either that, or concede that he's wrong.  Guess which one he will choose.

Judging by history, it's not a tough guess.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

He didn't propose a theory of her true meaning.  He pointed out an interpretation under which the tweet was not inconsistent.

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

I have no such theory, and never spoke to her intentions. I simply pointed out that it wasn't necessarily internally inconsistent.

Berkut started off a thread he titled "what the Right gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me...."

Quote
Socialism != social spending.

They are not even remotely the same thing.

What a society chooses to spend on social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they are "socialist". You could spend zero on social spending with a free market driven economy, or you could spend 75% of your GDP on social spending, and neither would be "socialism".

Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2021, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

He didn't propose a theory of her true meaning.  He pointed out an interpretation under which the tweet was not inconsistent.

I see that
What I don't see is the point of applying an interpretation that the speaker was not using.

It's possible to interpret the opening of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a reference to a soccer game from 7 years earlier that ended 4-0 but it would a pretty silly thing to do
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2021, 01:30:16 AM
What I don't see is the point of applying an interpretation that the speaker was not using.

To demonstrate mental agility.  To demonstrate powers of recall.  To take a swipe at Berkut.  To provoke an argument. 

Berkut

I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

alfred russel

Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 08:35:22 AM
I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

I never "owned" her tweet as my own. I only pointed out that it wasn't contradictory using a definition for socialism that you were using a few weeks ago (quoted above). 

That is as far as I went and it is kind of weird it set off a bunch of people criticizing my original statement on various grounds that weren't there. I think my post was rather self evident and noncontroversial.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Berkut

Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 08:35:22 AM
I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

I never "owned" her tweet as my own. I only pointed out that it wasn't contradictory using a definition for socialism that you were using a few weeks ago (quoted above). 

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

Either government funded healthcare is socialism, in which case the healthcare she appears to love is socialism, or it is not, in which case the healthcare boogeyman you are defending is not socialism either.

Funny how dedicated you are to completely and consistently defending right wing talking points, without actually, you know, believing them yourself. It's just an intellectual exercise, of course.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

alfred russel

Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:14:12 AM

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.


So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Valmy

The NHS is socialist. I think we can all agree on that.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."