5 ms·

In my perspective, the issue is less that the critics decline to offer alternative realistic solutions, but rather that they seek to repackage discredited and h

In my perspective, the issue is less that the critics decline to offer alternative realistic solutions, but rather that they seek to repackage discredited and harmful solutions (like supply-side economics) as being the correct fix if only it gets implemented correctly and without opposition meddling. This line of argument is also often used to whitewash Communism by saying things along the line of: "Communism would work just fine if it wasn't implemented poorly like the way China or the Soviet Union did." It's rather troubling that in such a connected and technologically advanced age, we can't seem help ourselves from looking to the past to organize ourselves for the future.

beat 10y ago
Those are almost always No True Scotsman fallacies. Supply-side failed because it wasn't supply-side enough. Etc.
- compiler-guy 10y ago
  It's not unlike abstinence-only birth control. Practiced perfectly, yes, abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is no question about that. And yes, some small fraction of people do manage to practice complete abstinence, and reap the benefit of not getting pregnant. But as a policy, abstinence only for broad swaths of the population is a total disaster.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Offtopic-ish: > some small fraction of people do manage to practice complete abstinence I actually think it's a pretty large fraction, but they do it out of inability to secure a mate. The people for whom supply and demand curves never cross. It's much harder to reason why a person capable of having a life will choose to not to.
stinkytaco 10y ago
Perhaps part of the problem is our desire to bundle solutions into grand theories, like supply-side economics or Marxism? I agree that we can beat a horse over and over again until there's nothing left to see, but small changes are how the world actually works. I can say "lowering taxes on producers of x can stimulate growth" or "increased public investment in industry y will resolve the problems it currently experiences" and those things occur all the time. But they also don't sell books. EDIT: Perhaps a better way of stating this is our desire to package academically useful economic models into grand policy solutions.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Yes, I think it's a big part of the problem. Packaging things together and discussing them as ideologies, instead of stripping them to components and evaluating each component on its merits.
  - discreteevent 10y ago
    This is exactly it. It's also a good approach when constructively criticising technical solutions. But we tend to like silver bullets too much.
crdoconnor 10y ago
Communism's "discreditation" was the result of a decades long propaganda campaign and their descent into authoritarianism which isn't all that different to that which many capitalist countries went through (or some are currently going through). You hear plenty of "well, capitalism would work fine too if it were just implemented correctly". That's exactly as stupid.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capitalist overthrow->authoritarianism->"communism"). Capitalism lends itself more towards authoritarianism, in my opinion, as the compound interest function of accumulated wealth works similarly with power. For example, wealthy Republicans support Republican politicians who lower their donors' taxes and entrench their party's power through gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as purged voter rolls, or deliberately understaffed polling places in areas with more opposition party voters).
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. After the 1950s they tried to re-gear the economy to producing things like fridges and, of course, for consumer items it wasn't nearly as effective. In the end the thing that undid the Soviet project was the idealism of its president (Gorbachev) when faced with the results of his authoritarian predecessors. It wasn't really an economic failure. >by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path If we attribute Stalin to a failure of communism surely we have to also attribute Hitler to a failure of capitalism? Or we could accept that both analyses are stupid and shallow. >Capitalism lends itself more towards authoritarianism I think economic systems are orthogonal to political systems.

beat 10y ago

Those are almost always No True Scotsman fallacies. Supply-side failed because it wasn't supply-side enough. Etc.

compiler-guy 10y ago
It's not unlike abstinence-only birth control. Practiced perfectly, yes, abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is no question about that. And yes, some small fraction of people do manage to practice complete abstinence, and reap the benefit of not getting pregnant. But as a policy, abstinence only for broad swaths of the population is a total disaster.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Offtopic-ish: > some small fraction of people do manage to practice complete abstinence I actually think it's a pretty large fraction, but they do it out of inability to secure a mate. The people for whom supply and demand curves never cross. It's much harder to reason why a person capable of having a life will choose to not to.

stinkytaco 10y ago

Perhaps part of the problem is our desire to bundle solutions into grand theories, like supply-side economics or Marxism? I agree that we can beat a horse over and over again until there's nothing left to see, but small changes are how the world actually works. I can say "lowering taxes on producers of x can stimulate growth" or "increased public investment in industry y will resolve the problems it currently experiences" and those things occur all the time. But they also don't sell books. EDIT: Perhaps a better way of stating this is our desire to package academically useful economic models into grand policy solutions.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Yes, I think it's a big part of the problem. Packaging things together and discussing them as ideologies, instead of stripping them to components and evaluating each component on its merits.
- discreteevent 10y ago
  This is exactly it. It's also a good approach when constructively criticising technical solutions. But we tend to like silver bullets too much.

crdoconnor 10y ago

Communism's "discreditation" was the result of a decades long propaganda campaign and their descent into authoritarianism which isn't all that different to that which many capitalist countries went through (or some are currently going through). You hear plenty of "well, capitalism would work fine too if it were just implemented correctly". That's exactly as stupid.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
First point, yes on propaganda, but the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism. That doesn't mean communism is a broken ideology, but rather that by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path, instead of envisioning a new model for a community-focused ideology (in a way different from capitalist overthrow->authoritarianism->"communism"). Capitalism lends itself more towards authoritarianism, in my opinion, as the compound interest function of accumulated wealth works similarly with power. For example, wealthy Republicans support Republican politicians who lower their donors' taxes and entrench their party's power through gerrymandering and voter suppression (such as purged voter rolls, or deliberately understaffed polling places in areas with more opposition party voters).
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. After the 1950s they tried to re-gear the economy to producing things like fridges and, of course, for consumer items it wasn't nearly as effective. In the end the thing that undid the Soviet project was the idealism of its president (Gorbachev) when faced with the results of his authoritarian predecessors. It wasn't really an economic failure. >by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path If we attribute Stalin to a failure of communism surely we have to also attribute Hitler to a failure of capitalism? Or we could accept that both analyses are stupid and shallow. >Capitalism lends itself more towards authoritarianism I think economic systems are orthogonal to political systems.