/lit/ - Literature

>>15664845
Worthwhile studies: Mathematics, philosophy, physics, and music.

why the fuck are you on this board go to /biz/ and bitch and moan plz.

>>15664845
Anon, the majority of economists are left-wing progressives. Of course there are some free-market cultists like Prescott, but what you would probably consider "bourgeois propaganda" it's mostly austrian economics which is incredibly marginal in the field. Nobody takes austrians, marxists and post-keynesians seriously (and to be clear: I don't think that's a good thing, maybe if economists were more open minded people would take THEM more seriously because in the present they don't).

But seriously, a lot of modern economists are soft left wing keynesians. And they win nobel prizes (like Stiglitz) and they teach in the major universities where people read their books (like Mankiw). They believe we should only let markets unregulated when perfect competition it's possible (which requires a series of very strict conditions). Otherwise, some kind of regulation it's needed (first best, second best, etc.). Did you ever read a Microeconomics textbook and read a little bit of the chapter on "externalities, market failures" etcetera?

It seems to me that you are either thinking austrians are important in the academic field, or that business students are economists.

Pic unrelated

Yes anon, it's the actual developed science and research that's wrong and not the shitty philosophy of a guy that lived over 200 years ago.

>>15664892
what about engineering? The revolution needs engineers.

>>15664901
economics is /lit/ related, /biz/ is for retards

>>15664919
>keynesian economics
>left wing
I want what you're smoking

>>15664921
>economics
>developed science

pick 1 and only 1

>>15664845
Why are modern humanities and non-economic social sciences co-opted by leftist propagandists? Seriously, it's all pseudoscience and leftist propaganda. I literally can not take anybody seriously who studies anthropology, sociology, English, etc.

>>15664945
Based

>>15664945
>Everyone who disagrees with me a leftist!
Take your meds.

>>15664941
engineering is applied physics anon, which his list covered

>>15664941
>left wing is only my brand of marxism
Marxists are the most insufferable people in the world. They discovered political philosophy two weeks ago, read The Communist Manifesto and now think everything other than marxism is right wing and fascistic.
Political thinking didn't start with Marx you know?

>>15664919
>the majority of economists are left-wing progressives
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, anon.

>>15664963
>he's an anarkiddie

>>15664957
>Everyone who disagrees with me is bourgeois!
Dilate.

>>15664919
They are all neolib shills for Capital, asshat.

>>15664941
I agree that there's a lot of problems with modern economics (and most social sciences) but it's better than Marxist bullshit.

>>15664970
So you're coming from /leftypol then, you're probably a tranny or gay and you started reading a month ago. Ok. Got it.
>>15664964
>>15664983
Ok. Give me the names of actual neoliberal free market cultists (von Mises-like, or at least Friedman-like) who are prominent economists in 2020.

>>15664945
Lmao. The humanities and social sciences have been infiltrated by the intelligence services for decades. Their entire goal is to subvert any leftwing movement with meaningless idpol and nonsense.

>>15665014
>Muh alphabet soup cope

>>15665014
>leftypol actually believes this
God damn it and to think I actually used to browse that board. To my defense, I have to say that when it was hosted in (7+1)chan it was a far more decent place than what it is now.

>>15664963
There's no such thing as a "leftwing capitalist", dumbass. Take your woke capital bullshit and shove it up your tranny-ass. You're just a rightwinger who likes black cock.

>>15665041
>There's no such thing as a "leftwing capitalist"
Explain the Democrats, then.

>>15665041
lol this is some very low quality bait anon. Is the discord raid going so bad that you have to resort to this? Oh well, it was fun to roast you a little bit but now I have to do real life stuff, goodbye faggot.

>>15665050
>Democrats
>left wing
holy fuck opinion wholly discarded lmfao

>>15665020
>>15665039
>>15665054
This is peak cope.
Back to r/t_d.

>>15665050
neoliberals

>>15664994
>Give me the names
Basically every member of the Economics faculty at every American university is a full-on supporter of capitalism, with the possible exception of a couple of oddballs at UMass Amherst. The whole discipline is cucked to death.

>>15665039
the board was destroyed after the mod had a mental breakdown and banned everyone who wasn't a tankie.

>>15665050
democrats have gone full neocon at this point.

>>15665118
It's sad at this point. I have always been close to marxism and I remember that in still in 2015 most of the people who read Marx were among the smartest that you would meet on the internet. Other people were barely literate. Nowadays "marxism" is literally a trendy fashion for American teenagers (something totally bizarre) that have this awful Fedora Energy and are the typical "well ACKSHUALLY" types. What a fucking joke. Internet and neoliberalism ruin everything

>>15665041
God its maddening how dishonest you drones are, literally LITERALLY NO ONE except you, uses your definition of "left wing" and yet you faggots constantly show up here and "correct" other people's correct definitions. The coordinated dishonesty is amazing.

>>15665159
>marxists were the smartest people you could meet on the internet
This has never been true, because to even consider marxism as viable economic and social system you must deny lived reality

>>15665176
Literally anybody with a basic grasp of political theory uses left wing like that anon does, YOU'RE the dishonest (well actually more likely just stupid) one here.

>>15665185
to even consider capitalism as a viable economic and social system you must deny lived reality

>>15665192
Stop lying you disgusting faggot.

>>15665205
He's baiting. Don't be so retarded to fall for it. If you engage he'll keep making threads until he kills /lit

>>15665205
Read a book and get the fuck off my board troglodyte /pol/tard

>>15665192
>if you consider the economic system that you, your grandparents, and their grandparents have always lived in viable you must deny lived reality
seems pretty fucking viable to me

>>15665218
so viable despite the abject poverty of dozens of countries that practice capitalism, the destruction of our environment, the outright slavery of the lower classes in China and other countries in the name of Capitalism, and the financial woes that millions of young Americans are currently suffering from. Yeah, I'd say the current system is untenable.

>>15665233
china is a communist country

>>15665472
China hasn't been communist in decades.

>>15664845
Why are you posting this on a literature board?

>>15664941
>economics is /lit/ related
It is not

>>15665014
take your meds

>>15665072
>asks for names
>gets this fucking reply instead
anon... I

>>15665478
so then what are they? totalitarians?

>>15665489
>/lit/
>Literature related
Pick one.

>>15664919
>Anon, the majority of economists are left-wing progressives.
the fact that they look "left-wing" to economists is more proof of the ideology

>>15665185
I think by ‘smartest people’ he means most bookish. Unquestioningly embracing the hell scape of modern consumer capitalism is for soulless cretins. Yeah it’s ‘reality’ and it’s how the world works, but don’t shit on people for dreaming of something different.

>>15664921
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/#PoppAppr
>Given Popper’s falsificationism, there seems little hope of understanding how extreme simplifications can be legitimate or how current economic practice could be scientifically reputable. Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. When models apparently fail tests, they are rarely repudiated. Economists conclude instead merely that they chose the wrong model for the task, or that there were disturbing causes. Economic models, which have not been well tested, are often taken to be well-established guides to policy, rather than merely conjectures. Critics of neoclassical economics have made these criticisms (Eichner 1983), but most of those who have espoused Popper’s philosophy of science have not repudiated mainstream economics and have not been harshly critical of its practitioners.
Literal pseudoscience.

>>15664845
Mainstream economics is basically the systematization of describing the way capitalism styles itself as working. If we look at it completely descriptively, it's not entirely terrible. But the problem is any time any economist thinks they have the right to be prescriptive, and that's when their work is used as propaganda for the bourgeois. Just as an example: Rejecting the labor theory of value in favor of a subjective theory does explain why people (markets) behave the way they do, supply and demand and all that, but what's unfortunate is that those thing's aren't for that reason normatively permissible, or not fucked up in some way. There's something genuinely screwed up with someone making money off your labor, for which you get paid less. What's funny though is that to the extent Marx appeals to labor to ground exchange value, he also can appeal to something concrete, not a mere fiat creation (as subjective value is), and that's his point in sticking so closely to material conditions when he critiques economics the way he does, which mainstream economics is rejecting because it's got an entirely different conception of what it is permissible to do, etc. So you really don't even have to appeal to the fact capitalism is morally fucked, you can point out that there's material contradictions going on in it.

>>15664845
>bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois
There's a reason your kind don't dominate economics, business, and finance. It comes down to the fact that growth is inferior in systems that apply Marxist thought. This is why you are only relevant in social sciences and the humanities where your critiques can coast on sheer politics and conformity, and don't need to be tested against anything. In the real world, cooperative businesses don't rule the world and economies controlled by workers are nowhere to be seen. Your ideas are shit, and don't work, otherwise they would have.

>>15665714
>This is why you are only relevant in social sciences
econ claims to be a social science

>>15665695
>but what's unfortunate is that those thing's aren't for that reason normatively permissible, or not fucked up in some way. There's something genuinely screwed up with someone making money off your labor, for which you get paid less.
Why? Morals are a social construct.

>what's funny though is that to the extent Marx appeals to labor to ground exchange value, he also can appeal to something concrete, not a mere fiat creation (as subjective value is)
Marx's LTV requires labor to be socially necessary in the first place, as in, meets some social need, so it really isn't on any firmer of a footing that mainstream subjective theories of value.

>>15665714
Capitalists are so tied to the idea that truth and goodness tie to 'usefulness', defined of course by capitalist metrics (propagating capitalism itself). It's false consciousness. Truth has no necessary connection to usefulness, while wedding value to usefulness gives it a means-end significance that threatens to abolish the intelligibility of value itself: if what you're do is only good because it brings about some useful end, why is the useful end good? If there is no end, there is no ultimate value. You have to reintroduce the idea of values that are valuable for their own sakes, divorced from "usefulness", to prevent such axiological nihilism. It's not a fucking coincidence that the rise of industrialized late capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries led to the propagation of all sorts of nihilisms, both about mind-independent truth and value in itself. Capitalism creates the conditions where man serves science and technology only to propagate consumerist commercialism, and the making of surplus value. As a result, man's consciousness is rewired completely.

>>15665014
>Their entire goal is to subvert any leftwing movement with meaningless idpol and nonsense.
Leftwings movements have always been cesspools of identity politics, this was true a hundred years ago and is still true today.

>>15665789
>Morals are a social construct.
This is one of the things where I actually believe not even Marx freed himself completely from false capitalist consciousness. See >>15665815 to understand why the rise in nihilism is actually due to capitalist brainwash. You only believe morals are a social construct, in ways that ultimately fall out of the reliance on 'usefulness' which begets excessive naturalism. Since morals aren't verifiable, they're danglers for our theories, and our theories need to be simple, because it's "useful" to have simple theories to calculate stuff easier. When you render morality useless to science, to technology, and therefore to capitalism, it's no wonder you shave it off. It's funny because one day capitalism will turn on the sciences themselves. It's already starting. A few universities are starting to cut their graduate physics and other research science programs as well as humanities programs because it's already gotten to the point where what we can do with the science we have is starting to outweigh the need to keep costs to sustain theoretical physicists trying to see if there's anything more science can do. It's a shame. Capitalism is a fucking monster.

>>15665865
>You only believe morals are a social construct, in ways that ultimately fall out of the reliance on 'usefulness' which begets excessive naturalism.
Morals are either divinely given or are a social construct. Obviously as a Christian I believe they're divinely sanctioned. But if you don't believe something similar, it's trivially true that they're a social construct.

>It's already starting. A few universities are starting to cut their graduate physics and other research science programs as well as humanities programs because it's already gotten to the point where what we can do with the science we have is starting to outweigh the need to keep costs to sustain theoretical physicists trying to see if there's anything more science can do.
Humanities are being cut because they turn out Communists (you) who burn our cities down. High energy physics funding is being cut because there's no way to make more progress without another big collider, and there's no guarantee that it'll show anything - Hep-th belongs in the math department nowadays.

>>15665914
>Morals are either divinely given or are a social construct.
False dichotomy, since you can also be more Platonistic-ish about it. It's a perfectly respectable view to be an atheist but believe in mind-independent objective moral facts, or at least it's not any less objectionable than needing a God to divinely legislate laws. Which, as far as one appeals to divine command theory, doesn't ground morality, since morality is still a matter of convention on that view, just a single person's convention (God's). That's no better than saying morality is socially constructed, also by convention.
>High energy physics funding is being cut because there's no way to make more progress without another big collider, and there's no guarantee that it'll show anything - Hep-th belongs in the math department nowadays.
Capitalism turns on mathematics already, and I can only imagine your sentiment expresses the idea that parts of physics are as useless and worth cutting off as mathematics. But have you thought yet about why usefulness is a virtue for you, that you define value in terms of it exclusively? As a Christian do you really disbelieve that some things are valuable in themselves? Why wouldn't the pursuit of truth, which philosophy, mathematics, and theoretical physics do, be valuable in itself, and worth preserving at all costs if we can? Instead you think it's better to fill the pockets of billionaires and foster an atmosphere of artificial scarcity because "the economy will thrive" or some crap? Think about it carefully.

/lit/ - Literature

>>15665968
no

>>15665478
and they have less poverty than when they were.

The main reason is reflexivity. The catch with a field such as economics is it forms a part of what it's studying. There is no way to step outside those reflexive conditions and observe the system at an objective distance. It's not a strictly descriptive science such as astronomy where you are categorizing natural regularities. Perhaps some concepts in economics such as supply and demand or comparative advantage describe unvarying laws of behavior that any rational actor would tend towards and which characterizes any possible economic system. But most economics reflects an ideological order that could perhaps vary. Neither is economics a hypothesis-driven science, as the ability to run experiments or to draw inferences from experiments is greatly limited. And the ideal of scientific impartiality is deeply compromised by the close association to the power structure that economics theories assumes.

Economics is not an impartial descriptive science although there are some threads in that spirit. There is an assumption in economics that you don't just describe what people do. You try to uncover the principles that maximize utility. You don't want to just describe what people do you want to know what works. But utility for whom you may ask? That is where the reflexivity comes in. The economics that gets promoted is that which is condoned by investment banks and the top university departments they fund and which produce their employees. Economic theories that are more likely to be elevated to policy are those which fit within the established order, not necessarily those which guarantee the maximum prosperity for the most people. Once those theories graduate to policy, such as the "Laffer curve", driving supply-side economics, you change the nature of the thing under investigation. How do you practice objectivity in these conditions? How can you tell that what you're seeing isn't the product of an arbitrary ideological constellation rather than a universal regularity?

>>15665959
>False dichotomy, since you can also be more Platonistic-ish about it. It's a perfectly respectable view to be an atheist but believe in mind-independent objective moral facts
It isn't.

>Which, as far as one appeals to divine command theory, doesn't ground morality, since morality is still a matter of convention on that view, just a single person's convention (God's).
That's what God does.

>Capitalism turns on mathematics already, and I can only imagine your sentiment expresses the idea that parts of physics are as useless and worth cutting off as mathematics.
My area of interest is Hep-th mate. The reality is, we aren't getting anywhere fast without a 100TeV collider, which isn't in the cards any time soon, and even that might not reveal anything new.

>But have you thought yet about why usefulness is a virtue for you, that you define value in terms of it exclusively?
It's not about "usefulness" being a virtue, it's simply true that subjective need/desire is what makes someone value a commodity, and even within Marxism is a precondition for labor to have social value in the first place. Why add the extra nonsense about labor value when we can't calculate it anyway? How many socially necessary hours is the chair I'm sitting in worth?

>Instead you think it's better to fill the pockets of billionaires and foster an atmosphere of artificial scarcity because "the economy will thrive" or some crap? Think about it carefully.
The pockets of a billionaire (Jim Simons) are funding a nontrivial part of pure math and hep-th right now. I would far prefer a return to patronage to more state funding, because the latter will simply lead to a growth in the diversity bureaucracy, which is where much of the money is going in the university right now. 100 billionaires allowed to give their money to scientists and write it off on their taxes could do a lot for pure math and theoretical physics.

>>15664945
> "why don't the academics agree with my race sciencerinos?"

>>15666519
Well, why don't they?

>>15666038
absolutely based

>>15666047
your maligned diversity bureaucracy is funded by those same billionaires, the government isn't endowing chairs. like it or not the shape that universities take is a direct consequence of the concentration of money at the top of the social hierarchy

>>15666525
based

>>15665014
All politics are identity politics. Demography is destiny and no one outside of the intelligentsia cares more about class than their national or cultural interests

>>15665066
Go back to r/chapotraphouse tranny freak

>>15667346
The funniest thing is today that chap board had a supposedly homophobic joke about a guy who sees naked dudes in every rorshach test. It was very telling that not a single poster in 100+ replies considered that the author was a woman. I was like wow, bashing the libs is just a universally manosphere activity no matter if it's from the left or the right.

>>15665176
Holy fuck, imagine being this clueless.

>>15665185
>>15665205
Your "Lived Experience" means jackshit, you pathetic libfag bootlicker.

>>15664845
guys, you don't even understand how children become right and left, and what it actually means, and you don't want to think why left and right is relative.

children are left to their parents, living off their budget, larping childhood, being clown toys for mommy and daddy. parents may be left on a state level, living of state money, taxes, larping some state funded job, being clowns. closer you are to resources, money, more right you are, and respect this "tradition". left, liberals want freedom to break tradition of right owning good place and stuff. right respect contracts, responsibility, left are clowns who get money for performance without strict quality control, like artists, teachers, actors (doctors, politicians, many scholars are actors, larpers).

we are all born left.

>>15665714
>muh growth
Apparently you were't important enough for Ted K to send you a package. In any case, the USSR's growth far exceeded that of any Western capitalist country, so you're even wrong on that point.

>>15665072
Damn I go to UMASS Amherst. I really hope we do do online classes this coming semester, otherwise ill be completely inundated with the "fun" aftermath of the current political situation.

>>15666047
>subjective need/desire is what makes someone value a commodity
That value attributable to 'subjective desire' is constrained by the DYI labor cost of producing the commodity. You start with a Robinson Crusoe scenario, where the value of a thing is measured by the labor a solitary man is willing to expend, and generalize to n-players. Saying "I want what I want" is not a substantive, measurable theory.

>>15667343
You wish, libfag. People care about their material well-being above all.

>>15664845
delaying the synthesis.
extracting maximum value but also creating maximal friction

>>15667503
My fellow Umie..........

>NOOOOO WHY WON'T ADULTS TAKE MY SHITTY PHILOSOPHY THAT HAS BEEN DEAD AND BURIED FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY SERIOUSLY THIS IS NOT FAAAAAAAAAAIR

>>15665815
>communist economics are so utterly dysfunctional that ideologues must reject the idea of usefulness itself in order to avoid taking an exit bag

How very surreal

>>15667524
I feel for you. Prepare for sob storied and chubby red haired dykes preaching to you and BLM everywhere you go. May allah preserve us.

>>15667577
Read the post again and respond to the fact that identifying value with usefulness actually threatens the very idea of value.

>>15667593
And the thing is I find WEB Dubois an interesting figure, but I can harldy stand the polemicism of the place outside a few good teachers I can have an honest nuanced discussion with without having to defer to banal platitudes. And that was when there wasnt race riots in recent memory.

>>15667609
Alas, another Umie?

>>15667611
Yessir. History Major. At least better than some of the humanities courses there.

>>15667595
economic value (not general value) is ontologically tied to usefulness. economics is about the allocation of resources, to conceive it as disassociate from the idea of usefulness is nonsensical

>>15664919
>Keynesian economics is left wing
No.

>>15667627
>raw materials cannot be made useful without labor
Fuck...

>>15667627
>economic value (not general value) is ontologically tied to usefulness
I don't even know what this means. Economic value in traditional economics doesn't track general value as you called it, but a sort of exchange value, we might call it the thing that then translates into price during an exchange (buying and selling), that's economic value. What I said was that to think general value as tied to usefulness (such that you think of things as 'worthless' if they don't serve some 'use'), is capitalist ideology. Only a capitalist thinks entire intellectual disciplines (not to mention the arts as well) are 'worthless' because they're also 'useless' (to capitalism). But to them, it's not so useless to have STEM fields, because that produces the workers who then design the products they sell for profit, or even helps develop the technology to create new things to sell for profit, or even create new means of production to produce things quicker and more efficiently for higher profits. The humanities won't do that for the capitalist, and mathematics/theoretical physics are increasingly under threat of becoming seen as 'worthless' themselves (it's already starting). Here, the idea is that these disciplines lose value when they don't have some 'useful' purpose to serve. Serve who? Capitalism, of course.