Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#11
03-16-2014
Default

from ur homepage,

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/long.pdf
Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action: PRAXEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS


see, just for instance, page 29 for an instance in which this author draws a wrong conclusion after having asked roughly the right questions.

i mean that to draw from wittgenstein's example and conclude that what the log-seller called a "price" is not in fact a price (bc the different meanings of the word; bc the seller and buyer are subjects of different moral-linguistic or economic communities) and to treat this as a defense of a theory which needs for those things to not count as prices in order to be "logically consistent" or "valid" in the first place is to bastardize what wittgenstein was saying, what his whole project and point was in authoring the book and set of ideas that are being referenced. (i can get into this whole can of worms in greater depth tomorrow if you'd like, having read a bit of wittgenstein myself, and maybe i'll also finally get around to typing up a response to a few of the things you said in that post up there which i haven't already talked to you about, but i'm going to bed now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 03-16-2014 at 01:52 AM.
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#12
03-16-2014
Default

1) mises.org isn't my homepage, and I don't visit it that often except to access pdfs of primary sources.

2) Haven't read and don't plan on reading the paper by Roderick Long. Don't expect me to defend everything someone says about Austrian economics. I'm just not sure what finding an article by some guy and saying he is wrong has to do with what we are talking about.

3) If you actually are interested in the the socialist calculation debate, read the three articles in http://mises.org/books/individualism...nomicorder.pdf, or the last one specifically which is a critique of a form of market socialism if I recall correctly.
GT: Zyphex
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#13
03-16-2014
Default

okay (that was a jake bud)

did you at least read some of the beginning and take a look at p. 29? my point is the man is defending the validity of misesian economic theory (as you have and as you are content with doing itt; see: every post) by relating arguments mises has made in defense of his theory to wittgenstein's arguments in TLP——which makes sense as the two were both products of the same cultural milieu (which is, btw, what this whole thread on "the viennese legacy" is about; guess you haven't noticed; so that is what it has to do with what "we're" talking about, or rather, what i've been trying to talk about, since the fact that both thinkers and their thoughts are products of a certain cultural movement is precisely what this thread is referring to with the phrase "the viennese legacy").

so, just once again, i know i'm not writing very clearly at the moment: this thread is in fact about the viennese legacy (neoliberalism), thus the title and links, and it is not about mises v. socialist market theory. which is why the link i posted last night is relevant while the one you've just posted is irrelevant. it's fine if you don't want to read the article or my thoughts on where this bastardization of wittgenstein comes from or what it really means for your homeboy's theory, but don't tell me that you aren't going to read something i've posted in my own thread while offering up a link to something that's irrelevant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 03-16-2014 at 11:58 AM.
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#14
03-16-2014
Default

just 4 giggles, i'd love if you told me how you think people become better endowed with wealth and power in the first place? (that is, why do you think people living under our economic-political-legal system become successful or more successful; what things must be true in order that someone can become successful itfp?)

Quote:
This varies based on the social structure.
how's it work in the capitalistic "social structure"?

bear in mind that the sort of capitalism we've now (decentralized flows of capital which bypass state structures, transnational corporations with internationally/supramorally legitimated rights, etc.,) works by "destroying collective structures" which "impede the pure market logic". this means, here, that what you seem to want to ascribe to "social structure" is actually (importantly) only ever your very market logic itself. neoliberal, global capitalism requires that states be set up in such a way as to allow for internationally unfettered "hops" (rather than flows) of capital: laws have to allow things like enclaved oil rigs/communities in algeria, nigeria, etc., subcontracted paramilitary protection to protect those enclaved communities, etc. (you get the idea)) in order for these things to exist—and look, they exist. these operations are all over the global south, extracting capital from the local area in a shell and sending it back to somewhere in virginia as fast as light itself. these operations rely on legal legitimation, so that there must be laws in place which allow for corporations to carry on business as usual. this means that the jeffersonian-lockean political system (viz., the main export of the us and its buddy systems besides arms) must be adopted in countries such as algeria, nigeria, (and regimes are needed to quell "social dissent", such that, in the chile case, pinochet became the bad man, and in nigeria's case, abacha became the bad man).
so how this works that countries seem to be moving "in this direction" is that the us&co (IMF, WB, etc.) invest in improving the electrical grids and infrastructures of UDCs (undeveloped countries), thereby imposing debt on the masses of these populations (while the elites in place benefit from the improvements, the country itself suffers and goes into debt) by forcing the country to enter the global world financial system through the strategy of debt; else( / and) we see paramilitary takeovers

i'm going off a bit here since you mention later in this post that you want to know what it means to "impede the pure market logic".

it means this.

i've posted that before; actually read it:
" Kenule "Ken" Beeson Saro Wiwa (10 October 1941 – 10 November 1995) was a Nigerian writer, television producer, environmental activist, and winner of the Right Livelihood Award and the Goldman Environmental Prize. Saro-Wiwa was a member of the Ogoni people, an ethnic minority in Nigeria whose homeland, Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta has been targeted for crude oil extraction since the 1950s and which has suffered extreme environmental damage from decades of indiscriminate petroleum waste dumping. Initially as spokesperson, and then as president, of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Saro-Wiwa led a nonviolent campaign against environmental degradation of the land and waters of Ogoniland by the operations of the multinational petroleum industry, especially the Royal Dutch Shell company. He was also an outspoken critic of the Nigerian government, which he viewed as reluctant to enforce environmental regulations on the foreign petroleum companies operating in the area.
At the peak of his non-violent campaign, he was tried by a special military tribunal for allegedly masterminding the gruesome murder of Ogoni chiefs at a pro-government meeting, and hanged in 1995 by the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha. His execution provoked international outrage and resulted in Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations for over three years. "

what does it mean to impede the pure market logic?. . . do you still not understand?—that's because you're an enclaved, conservative white male economics graduate student.

Quote:
No matter who you are, it is a conflation IF you take it that the unjustifiability of a person's political theory necessarily implies that his economic theories must be invalid (and vice versa). From an everyday perspective, it sure is a good pointer that if someone is flawed in their political views, they are likely flawed in their other views that inform their political views (such as their economic theories). All I am saying is that there is no strict logical connection, and as such I am arguing against the practice of discrediting an economists (or anyone's) political theory and then act as if that is logically sufficient to show that his economic theories are invalid. (The thought process is likely that his political views influence his economic theory, so if his political views are wrong, then the economic theories must be wrong. GIGO.) I see this as an easy step aside for anyone who is wanting to lampoon economics but not actually go through the struggle of honestly learning economics and addressing it on its own terms rather than on the political terms of those who formed the theories.
you're still wanting to divorce one's ethical and political theories (subjectivity) from their economic theories (subjectivity). i've harped on this before but you should read up on biopolitical production. (this is an excerpt from h&n's empire; see in this connection esp. p. 31).

the only sidestepping going on is in your treating this whole line of social critique as a sidestep (thereby logically validating your own sidestepping of it-- since it is only sidestepping, itself-- in your mind).


Quote:
What I am separating out is the relation between testing the validity of economic theories (logically or empirically) and the soundness of political theory. If Hayek were a Marxist, would he have spoke approvingly of Pinochet's regime? No. Is it because he favored freer markets that he spoke favorably of the Pinochet regime. Yes.
if hayek could see that economic theory involves political and ethical dimensions he would have been more sensitive to the fact that pinochet's regime, which both put his ideas to use and subsequently garnered his own approval only worked after "shock therapy". (corey robins writes a good article on this as well, and the link is in the op).

Quote:
So there is a connection between Hayek's economic views and his support of Pinochet. But does the validity/correctness of anything in his economic theory rely on the fact that he viewed Pinochet's regime positively? No. But it may be telling as to his view of morality or political theory, but then again, one should actually look at his political theory to see if he was acting on it or inconsistent in his action.
the fact that he has no moral opposition to what happened and supports it "in theory" is the problem. your defending the theory "in theory" is the problem.

Quote:
This is similar to playing the "Heidegger was an unapologetic Nazi" card and think that that is a sufficient critique of his ideas since, after all, it is possible that there is something in his ideas that led him to support Nazism and not publicly apologize.

"Most of the people, who were unable to do serious harm to the substance of Heidegger's thinking, tried to get at Heidegger the man with personal attacks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...ger_and_Nazism. This is how I view the Hayek-Pinochet talk. At least Robin tries to find something in Hayek's work that might pertain to his supporting Pinochet (Hayek's "elitism" in his theory); So I agree that there is certainly a red flag as to a person's political theory when you see them make dubious political connection or statements. But you have to actually go into their theory and confront it to show that it is malarkey, you can't just play off of the decisions of a fallible person to disprove their scholarly work. Not accusing you or Robin of doing this, just amking a statement as to how you can separate out what you asked and to what end is important to do so.


I have a problem. The way I see neoliberalism used isn't informative to me. It seems to me that much of the time it is a synonym for corporatism wanting to be a synonym for laissez-faire,
nah
its' like you didn't even read any of the links in the op defining neoliberalism
Quote:
but these are two conflicting views (for example, that tsunami debacle in Klein's book sounds like corporatism, not laissez-faire).
klein doesn't write about corporatism or laissez-faire economics but rather transnational corporations and states. if you would read her work before the CATO critique of it, or check out the few links related to her work specifically i left in the op, i think that would help clear up your misunderstanding.
Quote:
One view argues for corporate privilege in the form of subsidies, legal privilege to take over other's property (or damage their property), corporate welfare in the form of bailouts, and protections from competition. The other is by definition saying leave it alone. Obfuscating this distinction is harmful and dishonest. (I'm not even a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy, or Atlas Shrugged for that matter, but one of the main things she did in that book is demonize James Taggart for seeking out government privilege).
okay

Quote:
That's why I would really appreciate you putting two and two together for me and telling me who is a neoliberal, because it seems to me that an anarchocapitalist like Rothbard and a neo-con like George W. Bush could both be counted as neoliberals, which really makes the whole use of the term in most contexts a cheap rhetorical ploy to dance around different brands of thought so that one can poop on a single target and then smear the feces on everyone else. (Rothbard was against Pinochet, Hayek was more sympathetic.....so what is the neoliberal position on Pinochet?)
see above
i would not want to talk about a neoliberal position on pinochet. rather, i'd say pinochet's economic and social policies were neoliberal. i would also say rothbard might've been against pinochet's genocide etc. (in speech and perhaps even in thought) but not "in theory" (in actuality).

Quote:
The response to Klein's response had something that resonated with how I view the throwing around of this term neoliberalism to try and blanket over many different philosophies: I think that it's a cheap rhetorical trick (not trying to offend you, you didn't originate the use of the term), similar to one used by illiterates on the right to label anyone who favors any welfare policies as "Marxist."
that's why i'm talking specifically about the viennese legacy in this thread: saying we can situate this whole idea of "neoliberalism" in a certain historical context (such as the one i've been working to delineate, with its origins in the various machines of fin-de-siècle vienna)

Quote:
I just it read it again. I started typing some stuff on it but it'll turn into a monster if I try to get too far into it. I'll just make brief(er) comments.
First, he focuses on mathematical economics, particularly the notion of Walrasian competitive/general equilibrium theory. He makes an off the mark statement that seems to imply that Walrasian General Equilibrium Theory shows an opposition between efficiency and fairness, but that isn't the case (see the Second Welfare Theorem of Economics. We can belabor the mathematical assumptions, but that doesn't support Bourdieu's view that there is some opposition between efficiency and fairness (see how Rawls showed that efficiency and fairness can work together to determine a just and efficient allocation).
i'm not interested in what you're saying here, since it's only a sidestep which showcases your resistance to this whole line of thinking. i'm not being facetious, you need to read the article again. he is not ciritiquing walrasian economics but rather your very system of thinking which confuses the things of logic for the logic of things

Quote:
Then Bourdieu talks about the stress of having a job, which is all good and well, but he takes it a bit extreme, especially if he is denouncing neoliberalism (since Friedman and Hayek both supported a form of social safety net; Friedman's negative income tax and Hayek's views in the Road to Serfdom where he advocates for a social safety net to provide food, clothing, shelter, health insurance, natural disaster relief, and possibly unemployment benefits.) This is why I want to know what a neoliberal is and who qualifies. Friedman and Hayek pop up the most, but it seems as if they wanted to help those who might be viewed as disadvantaged by the market society, and both were against corporatism. (inb4 "hogwash, see Pinochet").
okay, look, i think i see where we are arguing past each other.

neoliberalism is not being evoked here to put blame on mises, friedman, hayek, or whoever else. i'm arguing that these men's ideas themselves are inseparable from a larger historical context (which we could refer to as the viennese legacy) which unfolds as neoliberalism. (neoliberalism is really only manifestly incorporated into the world system in the 80s w. reagan and thatcher; guess how many americans knew much of anything about pinochet's government at the time-- and imagine how much of that was false).
Quote:
In any case, the article will read much different to people who see the nature and role of profits in different lights. Bourdieu likes unions and government for whatever reason (social solidarity?)
because the unfettered hopping and skipping of capital introduces things like enclaved oil communities in algeria, nigeria, brazil, etc., and results in things like the hanging of ken saro-wiwa, and breaks up powers of collectives (e.g. does away with democracy).

your inability to understand this basic idea (your quip "(social solidarity?)" and your contentedness to leave it there) is the whole problem i'm addressing in this thread.

Quote:
and doesn't like profits in financial industries. But this article doesn't really get at who a neoliberal is or what neoliberalism actually is: "A programme for destroying collective structures which may impede the pure market logic."

What does it mean to impede the pure market logic? Does Hayek's support for a social safety net with state-funded health insurance demonstrate the pure market logic? What is "pure market logic"?
pure market logic, i.e., the a priori validity you (and robert, etc.) attribute to your self-proclaimed homeboy's economic theory




Quote:
I'll go about that briefly a bit next, but I also reposted a response to her response by the guy who wrote the CATO article. And yeah, I knew you'd view CATO exactly the same way I view Naomi Klein.We have our preconceived views, and so does this organization and that person, so we view them critically even before reading what they have to say.
except CATO is a well-funded self-proclaimed right-wing thinktank with ties to the very thing in question (the Washington Consensus), and naomi klein is an investigative journalist, sure, the comparison is viable

read a few more CATO articles about naomi klein and you surely won't have to read her work.



Quote:
Indeed, he throws some meat out there at the end, and as intelligent people, we can both see that the bit of meat is not substantive. The author is obviously trying to imply that her work is a work of fiction. To make a judgment, we should try to look at everything else he says previously, because I don't believe his critiques are fundamentally unfair, especially now that I've had a chance to see her response.

I'd rather you tell me what you think are the valid criticisms as well. I'll tell you that I think Klein does a good job by giving that piece of evidence on Friedman commenting on Iraq (from the German interview). While I think we should also evaluate other things he said about the war, at least I can see some basis for her interpretation of Friedman. I don't view the fact that Friedman wanted the war to be successful (whatever that means) to be an indication of his hawkishness. Some context would be nice for that quote.
She does well to note the places where she doesn't directly implicate Friedman, but her mention of Chicago boy ideologues seems to be an attempted implication.
I think she does a poor job of defending against the more substantive critiques of Norberg's article, points which he brings up in his response to her response. I'm talking about the three arguments he attributes to Klein and his three responses that went unanswered from the initial article. He also does a good job in arguing that, even in cases where Klein does not explicitly mention Friedman as a culprit, the context of her writing steers the reader to connect dots that might not be there, and his mentioning of the Friedman quote and tsunami footage in her video seems to show that that there are some dots she wanted connected, namely that Friedman's theory imply that what happened after the tsunami was Friedmanite policy.
not really interested in this whole line of discussion, i'm sorry. this isn't about klein, but if you want to know more about her, i've provided links in the op to a docu version of her work and an interview or two given by her about it. i see no point in telling you the places where the cato article blatantly "throws out meat" (pro-tip: it's all meat) because klein herself takes that question up.


Quote:
I'll try and watch the video sometime; the term "Empire" is reminding me of the term "Cathedral" from that neo-reactionary thread haha.


Well yeah, the Robin articles were about the Austrian school, primarily Hayek, you asked about Mises, and Naomi Klein likes to deride Friedman. The problem is, I see absolutely no worth to the term "neoliberal." Rather, it's the giant strawman that represents the views of everyone who favors laissez-faire or corporatism (which are two contradictory ideas), but at the same time represents none of their views. I have trouble seeing any collected, manifest legacy represented by the straw man named neoliberalism. Maybe I just need more clarification as to what, in particular, neoliberalism means (which means clarification as to what Bourdieu counts as "the pure market logic" and if corporatism is part of this market logic he speaks of).

Edit: Some justification for my view of the term neoliberalism
Spoiler!

Edit: The other thing (which is partly based on my perhaps mistaken view of what you think of the status of economic theory): [spoiler]The things I've looked at so far don't seem to address the arguments I find most persuasive in the argument for free markets. Critiquing markets by mentioning Hayek and Pinochet, critiquing markets by noting that bad dictators have liberalized their economies in an era when all countries seem to move in that direction,
my point, klein's point and perkins' confession, too, is that you have to look at what this really means (military coups, "modernization" schemes, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 03-16-2014 at 04:07 PM.
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#15
03-16-2014
Default

enclaved conservative white boy. shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
GT: Zyphex
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#16
03-16-2014
Default

enclaved conservative white male economics graduate student*

i'm drinking. enough with the shit 0/10 sidesteps

i'm not a huge fan of harvey more generally, but you should check this book or a part of it out when you get around to being serious... since you're still unclear on what's meant by neoliberalism, allow me to forcefeed you the "classical" take: A Brief History of Neoliberalism (notice a google search would have sufficed). another thing, foucault defined neoliberalism as the art of governance of society through economic incentives (although, granted, that is too simplistic a way to put how he really talked about it). the more you know


looking 4ward 2 ur response whiteboi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 03-17-2014 at 06:52 AM.
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#17
03-17-2014
Default

I'm too inept, sensitive, and clouded by my dogmatism to give a response you would find worthy. I'm afraid all I could produce would be a series of sidesteps in your eyes, so I'll save you the trouble of having to read my worthless garbled posts which seek to legitimize to myself that my investment in my homeboy's theories were not all for not.
GT: Zyphex
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#18
03-17-2014
Default

glad to see that you're emotionally mature enough to take something like a "privileged white boy" jab (which it wasn't even) more or less in stride, and not, you know, do something shitty like take it totally out of the actually meaningful context in which i used the phrase (i was claiming that ofc it's difficult for you to understand what it means to impede the pure market logic when you are it incarnate) just so as to avoid having to actually engage any further, or something
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 03-17-2014 at 12:42 PM. Reason: yeap i sure did imply you were inept and sensitive. or wait was that you, yourself?
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#19
03-17-2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM View Post
just 4 giggles, i'd love if you told me how you think people become better endowed with wealth and power in the first place? (that is, why do you think people living under our economic-political-legal system become successful or more successful; what things must be true in order that someone can become successful itfp?)


how's it work in the capitalistic "social structure"?

bear in mind that the sort of capitalism we've now (decentralized flows of capital which bypass state structures, transnational corporations with internationally/supramorally legitimated rights, etc.,) works by "destroying collective structures" which "impede the pure market logic". this means, here, that what you seem to want to ascribe to "social structure" is actually (importantly) only ever your very market logic itself. neoliberal, global capitalism requires that states be set up in such a way as to allow for internationally unfettered "hops" (rather than flows) of capital: laws have to allow things like enclaved oil rigs/communities in algeria, nigeria, etc., subcontracted paramilitary protection to protect those enclaved communities, etc. (you get the idea)) in order for these things to exist—and look, they exist. these operations are all over the global south, extracting capital from the local area in a shell and sending it back to somewhere in virginia as fast as light itself. these operations rely on legal legitimation, so that there must be laws in place which allow for corporations to carry on business as usual. this means that the jeffersonian-lockean political system (viz., the main export of the us and its buddy systems besides arms) must be adopted in countries such as algeria, nigeria, etc., and therefore it is often the case that regimes are needed to blatantly, openly quell the "social dissent"; such that, in the chile case, pinochet became the bad man, and in nigeria's case, abacha became the bad man (and etc....)
so how this works that countries seem to be moving "in this direction" is that the us&co (IMF, WB, etc.) invest in improving the electrical grids and infrastructures of UDCs (undeveloped countries), thereby imposing debt on the masses of these populations (while the elites in place benefit from the improvements, the country itself suffers and goes into debt) by forcing the country to enter the global world financial system through the strategy of debt; else( / and) we see paramilitary takeovers

i'm going off a bit here since you mention later in this post that you want to know what it means to "impede the pure market logic".

it means this.

i've posted that before; actually read it:
" Kenule "Ken" Beeson Saro Wiwa (10 October 1941 – 10 November 1995) was a Nigerian writer, television producer, environmental activist, and winner of the Right Livelihood Award and the Goldman Environmental Prize. Saro-Wiwa was a member of the Ogoni people, an ethnic minority in Nigeria whose homeland, Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta has been targeted for crude oil extraction since the 1950s and which has suffered extreme environmental damage from decades of indiscriminate petroleum waste dumping. Initially as spokesperson, and then as president, of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Saro-Wiwa led a nonviolent campaign against environmental degradation of the land and waters of Ogoniland by the operations of the multinational petroleum industry, especially the Royal Dutch Shell company. He was also an outspoken critic of the Nigerian government, which he viewed as reluctant to enforce environmental regulations on the foreign petroleum companies operating in the area.
At the peak of his non-violent campaign, he was tried by a special military tribunal for allegedly masterminding the gruesome murder of Ogoni chiefs at a pro-government meeting, and hanged in 1995 by the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha. His execution provoked international outrage and resulted in Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations for over three years. "

what does it mean to impede the pure market logic?. . . do you still not understand?—that's because you're not trying to.


you're still wanting to divorce one's ethical and political theories (subjectivity) from their economic theories (subjectivity). i've harped on this before but you should read up on biopolitical production. (this is an excerpt from h&n's empire; see in this connection esp. p. 31).

the only sidestepping going on is in your treating this whole line of social critique as a sidestep (thereby logically validating your own sidestepping of it-- since it is only sidestepping, itself-- in your mind).



if hayek could see that economic theory involves political and ethical dimensions he would have been more sensitive to the fact that pinochet's regime, which both put his ideas to use and subsequently garnered his own approval only worked after "shock therapy". (corey robins writes a good article on this as well, and the link is in the op).


the fact that he has no moral opposition to what happened and supports it "in theory" is the problem. your defending the theory "in theory" is the problem.


nah
its' like you didn't even read any of the links in the op defining neoliberalism

klein doesn't write about corporatism or laissez-faire economics but rather transnational corporations and states. if you would read her work before the CATO critique of it, or check out the few links related to her work specifically i left in the op, i think that would help clear up your misunderstanding.

okay


see above
i would not want to talk about a neoliberal position on pinochet. rather, i'd say pinochet's economic and social policies were neoliberal. i would also say rothbard might've been against pinochet's genocide etc. (in speech and perhaps even in thought) but not "in theory" (in actuality).


that's why i'm talking specifically about the viennese legacy in this thread: saying we can situate this whole idea of "neoliberalism" in a certain historical context (such as the one i've been working to delineate, with its origins in the various machines of fin-de-siècle vienna)


you need to read the article again. he is not ciritiquing walrasian economics but rather your very system of thinking which confuses the things of logic for the logic of things


okay, look, i think i see where we are arguing past each other.

neoliberalism is not being evoked here to put blame on mises, friedman, hayek, or whoever else. i'm arguing that these men's ideas themselves are inseparable from a larger historical context (which we could refer to as the viennese legacy) which unfolds as neoliberalism. (neoliberalism is really only manifestly incorporated into the world system in the 80s w. reagan and thatcher; guess how many americans knew much of anything about pinochet's government at the time-- and imagine how much of that was false).

because the unfettered hopping and skipping of capital introduces things like enclaved oil communities in algeria, nigeria, brazil, etc., and results in things like the hanging of ken saro-wiwa, and breaks up powers of collectives (e.g. does away with democracy).

your inability to understand this basic idea (your quip "(social solidarity?)" and your contentedness to leave it there) is the whole problem i'm addressing in this thread.


pure market logic, i.e., the a priori validity you (and robert, etc.) attribute to your self-proclaimed homeboy's economic theory





except CATO is a well-funded self-proclaimed right-wing thinktank with ties to the very thing in question (the Washington Consensus), and naomi klein is an investigative journalist, sure, the comparison is viable

read a few more CATO articles about naomi klein and you surely won't have to read her work.




this isn't about klein, but if you want to know more about her, i've provided links in the op to a docu version of her work and an interview or two given by her about it. i see no point in telling you the places where the cato article blatantly "throws out meat" (pro-tip: it's all meat) because klein herself takes that question up.



my point, klein's point and perkins' confession, too, is that you have to look at what this really means (military coups, "modernization" schemes, etc.)
fixed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 03-17-2014 at 03:17 PM.
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#20
05-06-2014
Default

 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off