You guys are discussing an article on stagflation. I'm so proud.

You don't have JSTOR access, do you? I suspected not.

So I did that. Google Scholar on "stagflation in 1970s UK" — Isaac

Try JSTOR. Stagflation --Its Cause and Cure

Explaining why Keynesianism failed Abba Lerner says:

"Missing was a microanalysis of why the market laws of supply and demand did not work in the downward direction. The answer is that wages are determined, not by the market, but by wage administrators--by wage negotiators, representing workers and employers, who have power to command wages to stay up even when the market is telling them that they should be going down because supply is greater than demand."

And if you're looking for the deep dive, there are analyses of how the interests of unions and the interests of central banks conflict, and what can be done to resolve that so neoliberals won't take over the next time we're at a similar crossroad.

All kinds of good stuff.

Can you guys just tone down the adolescent aggression and just talk like normal fucking people?

Did they call it that as a play on words of depths of despair — Changeling

It's a word usually used by European leftists, although some conservatives accept the label as a badge of honor or something.

Asking whose analysis it is isn't calling bullshit on you -- it's just a question, an inquiry to see more. — Moliere

Oh. Read up on the history of the stagflation of the 1970s, particularly in the UK where union gains were clearly unsustainable.

There was a war on unionization during the Reagan years culminating in the air traffic controllers incident. Are you familiar with that?

That wasn't a moral condemnation, bub. I was noting a practicality.

For me, the best approach to understanding history is to shelve condemnation and blame and just focus on the culture and agendas on the scene at the time.

The quick, easy, emotion packed narratives that advise the listener what she ought to lament have a place in human life, but I think it's important to recognize them as partial bullshit. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that bullshit is all you can spew. Why don't you offer me the same courtesy?

For me, it's clear that, at is core, the right is privilege-centric; it is defined by the possession of a much-greater-than-average portion of advantage — Pantagruel

Right. If you have a work force that's empowered to increase wages, a free market will respond by increasing prices. All it takes is an oil shock and it becomes impossible to make a return on investment. The way to return liquidity is by re-establishing social stratification.

If that's the case, then the larger part of the identifying-right must be confused in their allegiance. — Pantagruel

In the 1970s, there was an ambitious middle class in the US and the UK. Neoliberal policies appealed to them.

The people who create and implement those policies are only a small subset of the people who empowered them, and those people are one step further removed from policy formation — Pantagruel

Yep. An important thing to remember about neoliberalism is that it wasn't created by an elite group. The opposite is true. The present global elite was created by the success of a neoliberal policies. It's easy to condemn as if that's solving some problem. It's harder to understand why former leftist strategies failed so utterly. A real leftist would be interested in that question.

We're living through an event now that helps explain what happened in the 1970s. Note that Amazon just laid off 18000 workers. All of the big tech companies are doing something similar. Meanwhile, everywhere else, unemployment is low. The layoffs are part of a forced contraction to stop stagflation from setting in.

Imagine that right now, instead of companies having the power to lay people off, unions were able to increase wages. In the 1970s this happened and the resulting crisis created a difficult choice: either go deeper into socialism than the US has ever been, or take the guardrails off of regulation to allow the economy to shift away from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism. They chose the latter. It should be easy to understand why

If you don't, you fail. :lol:

Where is this line of thinking coming from? — Moliere

It's a standard analysis of the stagflation of the 1970s.

Wow

Neoliberalism doesn't really come from Ayn Rand. The main originator was Hayek. If you're interested in labor unions, it's really worth looking at how powerful unions helped set the stage for the Neoliberal take over. It's a lesson in what not to do.

The bible can be used to justify slavery or argue against it, — Athena

True. But you've scooted from "Christianity makes people passive" to "it's a two edged sword."

What is happening in the world today that can give the young a sense of purpose? I feel like we are free falling into chaos and desperately need to restore order and social purpose. — Athena

Climate change should do it.

Yeah, so I'll ignore you from on. :up:

Yeah, actually you did intend that.

Having a bad day, Cobber? — Tom Storm

Me? You're the one spitting on other people's experiences.

Yep

Yeh, pretty sure they have advertising in Indonesia. Very nice this time of year. — Tom Storm

Yeah, your experiences of life are likewise some bullshit off the television, I'm sure.

The idea that life is a competition just sounds like the dull and inchoate musings of advertising folk. — Tom Storm

It's in keeping with what a Korean guy told me about life there. Maybe the same is true in Indonesia.

Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by five police officers in Memphis, TN on January 10. All of the officers have been charged with second degree murder. All of the officers are black.

One of my favorites is the kind that Abraham Lincoln grew up with. It dictated that every person is born for some reason.
— frank

And more broadly, everything occurs for a reason. — Hanover

Yes.

Why do you ask if I'm open to it unless you think I have a choice in the matter? — Hanover

I don't know whether you're open to it, though I suspect not. I don't see how choice is involved here.

While determinism might demand that there be just one possible world, I don't see why it must demand that that one world consist only of that that who don't doubt determinism. — Hanover

You're free to believe whatever you like. You can't choose what you like, though.

The point here is that free will is a necessary prerequesite for the organization of our thoughts and our understanding of the world, without which nothing makes sense — Hanover

Because morality is fundamental to identity, I agree. But note that here, we're focusing on the way we're bound to think.

If you were open to it, I could show you why hard determinism is also indubitable (I'd stick to Schopenhauer).

What's left is to just be amazed that there is an insurmountable conflict within our intellectual make-up. I'd leave it Schopenhauer again, to point to what this implies.

But at the end of our Schopenhauer journey, we'd have to face the fact that we never strayed beyond noticing what we're bound to think. What does the way we have to think have to do with the way the world is? For that, we'd turn to Wittgenstein and become mystics.

You're saying that knowledge requires judgement, and judgment requires freedom to choose a direction.

The determinist would say that though the judge may sway back and forth, giving each account a fair hearing, being devoted to rendering judgement with no prior bias, he can ultimately only make one choice.

That choice is what he or she was always going to conclude.

It means you were going to do X. You have know way of knowing what you did, why you did it, or whether it was learned or always known. — Hanover

Why couldn't you know what you did and why you did it? Determinism just means there was always a 100% chance you would do x, realize y, etc.

Look at you with your JSTOR access. I can't read that until I go to work.

think you may be right about adversity being a good motivator. I am concerned that Christianity has hindered us in the need to learn of virtues and intentionally act on them until doing so becomes a habit, because Christianity is about being saved by the Savior, instead of being saved by our will to develop virtual habits. — Athena

Christianity is a platform for a multitude of outlooks. One of my favorites is the kind that Abraham Lincoln grew up with. It dictated that every person is born for some reason. It's up to the individual to discern what that purpose is by listening for the voice of God in the events that unfold around one. Lincoln was apparently sustained by this belief, I'd say in a way an atheist couldn't be.

Sure, and you were forced to say that by these constraints and me to say otherwise, which is the meaninglessness of determinism and which is even more meaningless to suggest we've figured it out, considering whatever we figured out was what we had to think regardless. — Hanover

How does determinism make it meaningless to learn? It just means that you were always going to learn x at time y.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.

but I've always been treated with courtesy and friendliness, and it was just better than I expected. — Wayfarer

I'm glad to hear that. :up:

as I now have two American grandkids (although they will be dual Australian citizens.) I get the Wisconsin is kinda dull, but Lake Michigan is something. — Wayfarer

True. I used to live in Ohio and I was enchanted by Lake Erie. I would so move to Australia if I had dual citizenship.

Cheese is important. Do you have something against cheese? — BC

I love cheese. NY style sharp cheddar is my favorite.

Who doesn't want to visit an ice castle made out of cheese curds? — BC

Good question. :chin:

Then there is bratwurst and beer. — BC

Columbus, Ohio also prides itself on its bratwurst. They have a festival and everything. It's so exciting.

Hey, let's not be denigrating the upper midwest. Wisconsin has several points of interest. — BC

Do they involve cheese?

I have family in Wisconsin. Lovely place, hope to be back there again in August. — Wayfarer

It's kind of unfortunate that you travel all the way to North America to visit Wisconsin. :confused:

If I want a laugh I might pop on Blue Velvet. — Tom Storm

There might be something wrong with you.

90 seconds to midnight. The closest it's ever been. Posted by people who are not idiots by the way. This cannot be forgotten, regardless of who one "supports".

It can tend to fade into the background given immediate deaths, but, it's a real problem. — Manuel

It's winter. We'll start back up in the spring.

Man on the Moon was pretty good.

The Shining
Hero (with Jet Li)
Young Frankenstein
Apocalypse Now
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
It Follows
Pandorum
Solaris (American version)
Adaptation
House of Flying Daggers

What? We can use the James Webb, land on the moon, calculate the age of the universe and the distance of galaxies all on the basis of the little we do know. Is this not real knowledge of the universe even if the science is incomplete? — Manuel

Telescopes and moon landings are engineering feats and it's a pet peeve of mine to assign their victories entirely to scientific knowledge. It's doesn't actually work that way, but that's beside the point. :smile:

There's no scientific findings published by Nature that address mind independence. This is an assumption arising from your worldview. I've said this several times now. I'm not sure why it's unclear.

So is there mind-independence in your view, or no? Like, do you believe all these is to the world and the universe are our thoughts about it? That's perfectly fine if it is your view. — Manuel

I have the same worldview you do. I'm just clearer on the arbitrariness of it than I think you might be.

Since Newton at least, physics has not been wrong — Manuel

Yes. My point was just that since it's incomplete, the claim you're making isn't really about science. It's a philosophical bias that's common during the time in which you live.

There's weight to scientific findings. You can't really borrow that weight to say there's a mind independent world.

To some extent it's a hinge proposition that there are mind independent things, but I don't know how much of your behavior really revolves around that hinge. I don't know how differently people behaved 5000 years ago.

I don't think these theories will be shown to be wrong (as was the case with Newton's theories), but obviously incomplete. — Manuel

We might be in a black hole. Physics isn't slightly incomplete. It's very incomplete. Physics doesn't indicate any particular ontology.

The alternative is that we created everything, including the world and that all we know are our ideas and nothing else. That's an extreme form of Berkelyianism. — Manuel

Plato would say we forget most of the Soul's wisdom when we're born. There are all sorts of alternatives. There's nothing wrong with our present worldview. It works well for us. But there's no telling what people will believe in a thousand years.

So you think the stuff physics describes wouldn't exist if we were absent? That is, there would be no such thing as an age of the universe, nor would there be things we call planets (after we arise and call them this) and events that led us to our evolving? — Manuel

Notice that in your previous comment, you added the caveat that our theories may have to be revised. Physics is in such a state that we really don't know how far from reality our intuitions are.

That means your claim pretty much reduces to: there is non-mental stuff that preceded us. That's not a conclusion drawn from any facts. It's an interpretation that's rooted in our present worldview.