what's wrong with economics

[butchersapron]

Oh cool, do you reject the existence of all continents or just that one?

How an you have a contract with a continent? Do have a think about what i was responding to. Go on. Have a think about the construction of sovereignity - have a think about the basis of this discussion. The idea of terra nullis. You lazy lazy man.

 

[tbtommyb]

How an you have a contract with a continent? Do have a think about what i was responding to. Go on. Have a think about the construction of sovereignity - have a think about the basis of this discussion. The idea of terra nullis. You lazy lazy man.

JohnnyCanuck was talking about treaties, not me. You said there was no such place as North America, I'm just interested in why you think this is so.

 

[butchersapron]

JohnnyCanuck was talking about treaties, not me. You said there was no such place as North America, I'm just interested in why you think this is so.

Do what i said. Then tell me what i said.

 

[tbtommyb]

Do what i said. Then tell me what i said.

Well naturally all your clever concepts are too much for my little head, as you're frightfully smart - do you think people recognise that enough?

But perhaps the point you're making is that 'North America' is euro-centric and dependent on the idea that this bit of land was just waiting there for a European to come along and name it.

 

[butchersapron]

Well naturally all your clever concepts are too much for my little head, as you're frightfully smart - do you think people recognise that enough?

But perhaps the point you're making is that 'North America' is euro-centric and dependent on the idea that this bit of land was just waiting there for a European to come along and name it.

Perhaps eh? And a clever word that was used by someone else earlier in this thread thus sparking the discussion that you glop on the end of. Nicely demonstrating that you haven't bothered to read the relevant immediate context never mind the actual thread. Lazy lazy timewaster.

 

[tbtommyb]

Perhaps eh? And a clever word that was used by someone else earlier in this thread thus sparking the discussion that you glop on the end of. Nicely demonstrating that you haven't bothered to read the relevant immediate context never mind the actual thread. Lazy lazy timewaster.

Right... So that's a completely different argument to saying 'there's no such place'. You're saying there shouldn't be such a place. There patently is though.

Try and be accurate

 

[butchersapron]

Right... So that's a completely different argument to saying 'there's no such place'. You're saying there shouldn't be such a place. There patently is though.

Try and be accurate

No. Try again.

and what's a completely different argument? I didn't offer an argument in that post - different or otherwise. I just noted your lack of understanding of the debate that you jumped into and that you rather arrogantly hadn't bothered reading not only that strand of the discussion but the thread pretty much from before you deigned to post on it.

 

[tbtommyb]

No. Try again.

and what's a completely different argument? I didn't offer an argument in that post - different or otherwise. I just noted your lack of understanding of the debate that you jumped into and that you rather arrogantly hadn't bothered reading not only that strand of the discussion but the thread pretty much from before you deigned to post on it.

Right, it seems we're on a forum ego trip again.

I simply asked why you said there was no such place as 'North America'. You have given no justification for such an absurdity and our ensuing discussion has been about a separate point entirely.

I have read the entire thread (see my posts throughout) but obviously this crap discussion is all due to me being so weak minded compared to your brilliance, not that you posted nonsense.

On ignore now as I can't be doing with your need to have everyone know how clever you are, it's pathetic

 

[seventh bullet]

Why does that mean it didn't exist?

I never said it didn't exist. JC was talking about Genghis Khan.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the debate that you jumped into.

You and I?

A debate?


Get a grip, man.

 

[phildwyer]

Perhaps you could point me to where fascists argue for economic egalitarianism?

Strasserism.

 

[hipipol]

What was the OP again?

 

[8115]

What was the OP again?

I think this thread is providing, if not explanation, certainly illustration of some of what is wrong with economics.

 

[hipipol]

I think this thread is providing, if not explanation, certainly illustration of some of what is wrong with economics.

An illustration by Bruegel it seems

 

[8115]

An illustration by Bruegel it seems

Buregel the think tank or Bruegel the painter?

If the second, I think more Hieronymous Bosch.

 

[hipipol]

Buregel the think tank or Bruegel the painter?

If the second, I think more Hieronymous Bosch.

The painter
But your right
Its twisted and full of agonized souls,
Its by Bosch!!!!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How an you have a contract with a continent? Do have a think about what i was responding to. Go on. Have a think about the construction of sovereignity - have a think about the basis of this discussion. The idea of terra nullis. You lazy lazy man.

What on earth are you on about? To remind you, this is the post you're responding to. He says treaties with people in places like North America, not treaties with North America. Really, wtf?

Probably true of Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde. But, for instance - your Empire; it concluded treaties with indigenous people in places like North America.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What on earth are you on about? To remind you, this is the post you're responding to. He says treaties with people in places like North America, not treaties with North America. Really, wtf?

He's asking:
Where does the concept of "North America" come from, and what does that say, when discussing the indigenous peoples of those lands?
He's saying:
An attitude that imposes a label (North America) will often be an attitude that brands anything native as "worthless" (let's not forget that the "Pilgrim Fathers nearly starved because they insisted on using their "advanced" European farming methods, rather than learning from the locals). We're well aware from history, just how useful or honoured those treaties were. Terra Nullius just happens to be the ultimate reflection of this attitude.

 

[isvicthere?]

You're serious aren't you? Starvation as a choice. Wonderful.

Big on "choice", these randroids.

 

[tbtommyb]

He's asking:
Where does the concept of "North America" come from, and what does that say, when discussing the indigenous peoples of those lands?
He's saying:
An attitude that imposes a label (North America) will often be an attitude that brands anything native as "worthless" (let's not forget that the "Pilgrim Fathers nearly starved because they insisted on using their "advanced" European farming methods, rather than learning from the locals). We're well aware from history, just how useful or honoured those treaties were. Terra Nullius just happens to be the ultimate reflection of this attitude.

No, it's broader than that. It's that imposing a particular label imposes an associated world view. For example, calling some disputed islands by their Chinese or Japanese name is interpreted as applying, intentionally or not, the associated sovereignty. So in this case, using terms such as 'America' or 'the New World' implies a euro-centric idea that these were empty lands just waiting to be discovered and colonised. Johnny, if he were to use the term, would have been more accurate to say 'in what is now called / in modern-day North America' (and also avoided the term 'indigenous', which is far more loaded imo). I am interested to see what suggestions there are for how he could have avoided 'America' altogether.

Of course, to comment that 'there's no such place' isn't a particularly good response to Johnny's choice of language, requiring as it does for the reader to reconstruct several torturous leaps of logic to work out wtf it is trying to say, dodging unhinged vitriol along the way. But then I don't have teh smartz .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He's asking:
Where does the concept of "North America" come from, and what does that say, when discussing the indigenous peoples of those lands?
He's saying:
An attitude that imposes a label (North America) will often be an attitude that brands anything native as "worthless" (let's not forget that the "Pilgrim Fathers nearly starved because they insisted on using their "advanced" European farming methods, rather than learning from the locals). We're well aware from history, just how useful or honoured those treaties were. Terra Nullius just happens to be the ultimate reflection of this attitude.

No, he's not saying that. He's attempting an absurd nitpick at someone describing the area as North America without acknowledging that America is a European label - as if any of us acknowledges such things every time we say something. Doesn't invalidate jc3's point, and in no way did jc3 imply that America was anything other than a European label. It was a moronic line of posting.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

He's asking:
Where does the concept of "North America" come from, and what does that say, when discussing the indigenous peoples of those lands?
He's saying:
An attitude that imposes a label (North America) will often be an attitude that brands anything native as "worthless" (let's not forget that the "Pilgrim Fathers nearly starved because they insisted on using their "advanced" European farming methods, rather than learning from the locals). We're well aware from history, just how useful or honoured those treaties were. Terra Nullius just happens to be the ultimate reflection of this attitude.

Once again, it's a bit of semantic shorthand.

My intention was to communicate the idea of the British Empire entering treaties with many tribes who were resident on the contiguous land mass located between 73.00 N, 67.00 W and 33.75 N, 84.39 W; and 47.56 N, 52.70 W and 49.14 N, 125.89 W. That land mass has come to be known as the 'North American Continent', which I shortened to North America, for ease of typing.

I'm aware that the aboriginal tribes themselves didn't refer to it as 'North America', but I'm unaware of the equivalent word in Tsilhqot’in, for instance; and similarly, it's unlikely that anyone reading my post would have understood the Tsilhqot’in word.

 

[butchersapron]

No, he's not saying that. He's attempting an absurd nitpick at someone describing the area as North America without acknowledging that America is a European label - as if any of us acknowledges such things every time we say something. Doesn't invalidate jc3's point, and in no way did jc3 imply that America was anything other than a European label. It was a moronic line of posting.

No. You, as you so often do when you rush in thinking that you can get a free punch in - are wrong. I wasn't making a about a geographical area at all, nor one about naming of such areas. I was, as i said, making a point about the birth of political economy and it's historical development into economics (i.e the context and history defence of capitalism and the interests of capital an capitalists in various aspects) through the development of the british occupation of North America that was ideologically justified by the argument that land that was presently occupied could and should be taken from the current occupiers if it could be shown to no be at least as productive as the social average of the more developed state. A step from the existing concept of terra nullis based around force to one based on economics. A move from non-economic to economic compulsion - a move to economics from political economy. From feudalism to capitalism. You know, a point related to this thread and the debate therein about the idea of economics. A point that VP and others grasped straight away - as would anyone familiar with the physiocrats and the early classical economists.

If you'd like to read up on this i would recommend having a look at the book i linked to earlier or The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation. And also try not to assume that you always manage to grasp what points others are making.

 

[J Ed]

Big on "choice", these randroids.

Ayn Rand on the indigenous peoples of the Americas

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights

 

[kabbes]

What an intellectual giant. No wonder she is revered by so many.

 

[fractionMan]

That's a proper bit of intelligable racist rant that. Not quite muslamic ray guns, but half way there at least.

 

[gamerunknown]

Strasserism.

Hardly overwhelming. You wrote "Fascists claim to be committed to economic egalitarianism", not that a tiny minority of them argued for adopting some social reforms while maintaining a central government (whose principle exponents, Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser were respectively expelled from the NSDAP and executed, as it stands).

The two dimensional model could illustrate their actual positions given a few probing questions. The terms "left-communist" and "left-wing fascist" are less useful when used as epithets though, as in the former "left" typically refers to the authoritarian pole, rather than the economic one. In the latter, it's essentially projection.

 

[phildwyer]

Hardly overwhelming. You wrote "Fascists claim to be committed to economic egalitarianism", not that a tiny minority of them argued for adopting some social reforms while maintaining a central government (whose principle exponents, Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser were respectively expelled from the NSDAP and executed, as it stands).

The point remains valid, however, that Fascists are committed to economic egalitarianism in principle. Furthermore, they are committed to state intervention in its pursuit. These are positions they share with Communists, but not with liberals or conservatives.

The two dimensional model could illustrate their actual positions given a few probing questions. The terms "left-communist" and "left-wing fascist" are less useful when used as epithets though, as in the former "left" typically refers to the authoritarian pole, rather than the economic one. In the latter, it's essentially projection.

Once you start differentiating between "economic" and "authoritarian" usages of "left" and "right," you've already demonstrated the terminology's obsolescence.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Ayn Rand on the indigenous peoples of the Americas

Thanks for posting that J Ed. I was unaware of this bit of cuntery on her part, although I'm familiar with a good bit. It took me a while to find something rational to say rather than posting a string of four letter words. I think I'll just say that there's nothing more savage than her "philosophy." She was lucky no one was nutty enough to accept her philosophy in her lifetime. Otherwise, she'd have been the recipient of policies designed to "starve the moochers" rather than living on the government dole in her later years.

 

[gamerunknown]

The point remains valid, however, that Fascists are committed to economic egalitarianism in principle.

In fact, I'd like to revise my previous statement to "overwhelming exceptions".

Once you start differentiating between "economic" and "authoritarian" usages of "left" and "right," you've already demonstrated the terminology's obsolescence.

How so? Obsolete to whom?