Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
Thanks Tree20Thanks

Thread: Democrat vs Republican: The Knowledge Struggle

  1. #41
    Junior Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,899
    Thanks
    1182

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    The conclusion is straight forward: Republicans have higher knowledge on economics. Whether that knowledge is skewed in favour of a school of thought we personally may dispute is irrelevant.


    Ahh, I've already referred to the superior economic performance of Democrat Presidents. What we could have, of course, is the influence of morality. While republicans are likely to be older and there more likely to investing, democrats are more likely to rely on their sense of right or wrong. Rather than referring to the inefficiency of inequalities, for example, they simply refer to what they think is equitable.


    But irrationality of the voter restricts pressure on politician. If folk were as knowledgable as socialists there wouldn't be such toleration for such high working poverty etc etc etc


    Look at Britain. Politicians went for consensus over austerity, despite its economic irrationality. That has only been demolished by the massive increase in Labour membership and an enthused electorate capable of rejecting the folly.
    Our conversations are why I come to these boards. I tend to agree with you but do quibble a bit in terms of economic literacy. One could easily have come to the same conclusions about religion but does that mean they are right or that knowing religion or standard economic theory is somehow "good". A group can be more knowledgeable about untruths but is that a desirable state to be in? Surveys like this are used for political ends. It is cannon fodder for those who want to claim liberals should not be trusted with power because they have no clue how to run a state. Personally, I understand that one must know the current dogma in order to objectively reason with it but if after all this knowledge you end up with the same worldview, was it worth the time to confirm through efforts what you knew instinctively?
    Thanks from Ęthelfrith

  2. #42
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    Our conversations are why I come to these boards. I tend to agree with you but do quibble a bit in terms of economic literacy. One could easily have come to the same conclusions about religion but does that mean they are right or that knowing religion or standard economic theory is somehow "good".
    Religion is an interesting perspective. Pluralism is arguably a little different there: they refer to tolerance; acceptance of different approaches. Within Economics I adopt something similar. I'll certainly refer to a wide range of schools of thought, from the right (neoclassical; Austrian; bastardised Keynesianism) to the left (institutionalism; Marxism; post-Keynesianism). The Schools of Thought aren't necessarily in conflict and stealing between them can be fruitful. However, it is certainly the case that others will dispute the effectiveness of that approach. One School can be used to pour scorn on another. Pluralism is then not about tolerance, but arguably just about recognition of the different schools.

    A group can be more knowledgeable about untruths but is that a desirable state to be in?
    But there aren't truths. Economics is at its best when that is recognised. Take unemployment and how orthodox economists stole concepts from Marxism (necessarily adding appreciation of conflict within the labour contract). That is an example of how Labour 101, referring to laws of supply and demand, is neatly side-stepped just by listening to the debate.

    Surveys like this are used for political ends. It is cannon fodder for those who want to claim liberals should not be trusted with power because they have no clue how to run a state. Personally, I understand that one must know the current dogma in order to objectively reason with it but if after all this knowledge you end up with the same worldview, was it worth the time to confirm through efforts what you knew instinctively?
    Market fundamentalism goes beyond any of this. Will a right winger crow 'its just the law of supply and demand'? Without doubt. But without knowing those laws there is no critique and no pressure on politicians. As mentioned, we get folly such as austerity.

  3. #43
    Junior Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,899
    Thanks
    1182

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Religion is an interesting perspective. Pluralism is arguably a little different there: they refer to tolerance; acceptance of different approaches. Within Economics I adopt something similar. I'll certainly refer to a wide range of schools of thought, from the right (neoclassical; Austrian; bastardised Keynesianism) to the left (institutionalism; Marxism; post-Keynesianism). The Schools of Thought aren't necessarily in conflict and stealing between them can be fruitful. However, it is certainly the case that others will dispute the effectiveness of that approach. One School can be used to pour scorn on another. Pluralism is then not about tolerance, but arguably just about recognition of the different schools.


    But there aren't truths. Economics is at its best when that is recognised. Take unemployment and how orthodox economists stole concepts from Marxism (necessarily adding appreciation of conflict within the labour contract). That is an example of how Labour 101, referring to laws of supply and demand, is neatly side-stepped just by listening to the debate.


    Market fundamentalism goes beyond any of this. Will a right winger crow 'its just the law of supply and demand'? Without doubt. But without knowing those laws there is no critique and no pressure on politicians. As mentioned, we get folly such as austerity.
    Again, we certainly agree and of course the reason why economics continues to fascinate me is because it is so powerful and because it is so unworthy of our blind faith or trust. As with religion, if one truly wants to understand why you do not accept it, one must study it as I have and apparently as you have done. But the problem is that despite our efforts, the world continues to follow these ideas and the average person never truly grasps the errors and omissions in each discipline, we just blindly go about our business hoping that better minds and more powerful leaders do not screw us. Unfortunately, we keep coming back for more hoping that the last reaming was the final injury. Cheers.
    Thanks from Ęthelfrith

  4. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,220
    Thanks
    3816

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    HEY EVERYONE @Eve1 BELIEVES SOCIAL SECURITY IS WELFARE.. THIS IS WHY DEMOCRATS STEAL FROM THE SS TRUST SINCE 1965.
    It is welfare. There's no "belief" about it. It literally is that. It just happens to be a regressive form of welfare in that it's structured like a defined benefit public pension. Defined benefit public pensions are notoriously bad for society, given their overwhelming propensity to result in ever-compounding unfunded liabilities for future generations.

  5. #45
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    Again, we certainly agree and of course the reason why economics continues to fascinate me is because it is so powerful and because it is so unworthy of our blind faith or trust. As with religion, if one truly wants to understand why you do not accept it, one must study it as I have and apparently as you have done. But the problem is that despite our efforts, the world continues to follow these ideas and the average person never truly grasps the errors and omissions in each discipline, we just blindly go about our business hoping that better minds and more powerful leaders do not screw us. Unfortunately, we keep coming back for more hoping that the last reaming was the final injury. Cheers.
    I certainly have been dumbfounded by the support of austerity and neoliberalism, despite any sense behind the economics. But look at the positive reaction to the left wing agenda set by Corbyn in Britain. Folk often surprise you with their knowledge. The problem is when the narrative 'there is no alternative' sticks. That takes elites pandering to consensus politics

  6. #46
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,114
    Thanks
    3345

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Evidence suggests that Republicans are more knowledgeable on economic issues than Democrats. However, evidence also suggests that Democratic politics is more likely to acquire higher economic growth than Republican politics.

    Your explanation?
    You're going to have to provide the "evidence" for your claims first, then I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

  7. #47
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by OHjulie View Post
    You're going to have to provide the "evidence" for your claims first, then I'll be happy to share my thoughts.
    Already have. Read back and stop being so darn lazy

  8. #48
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,114
    Thanks
    3345

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Already have. Read back and stop being so darn lazy
    I'll take a link to your evidence, Alex.

  9. #49
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1458

    Quote Originally Posted by OHjulie View Post
    I'll take a link to your evidence, Alex.
    Enjoy the wait. Might offer an opportunity to read the thread

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15th November 2016, 12:02 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 14th February 2015, 05:10 AM
  3. Republican becomes a Democrat
    By Cotton2226 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 6th January 2015, 12:40 PM
  4. First Republican / First Democrat
    By justoneman in forum World History
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 13th May 2008, 03:35 PM
  5. Republican vs. Democrat
    By Faithful One in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd February 2007, 09:06 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed