4 ms·

I think it's likely that they were intended to deliver the results we see today. The public-facing rhetoric supporting those policies notwithstanding.

beat 8y ago
I'm not that cynical. I find the whole concept of attributing malice as the primary motive of those whom I disagree with to be one of the most basic (and common) of political failures. No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  But while those policies didn’t benefit the public they did benefit the people who formulated the policies. That’s the smoking gun. When someone shoots themselves in the foot it is likely an accident. If someone shoots me in the foot and somehow winds up with my wallet in their hands, I’m inclined to think it was intentional.
  - goodpoint 8y ago
    "smoking gun" is an understatement. neo-liberalism: "a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism." The movement has been very right wing, pro-corporate and pro-billionaire since the beginning.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      What do you mean by "right wing" here? Do you just mean "capitalist"?
      - fallingfrog 8y ago
        The term “right wing” comes from revolutionary era France, where in the general assembly the aristocracy sat on the right, and everyone else sat on the left. In the modern world the “aristocracy” would be the capitalist class, so yes, anything that benefits the capitalist class is right wing, in that sense.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        Why not just say "capitalist" since "right wing" can mean many other things? Why use the more ambiguous term when the more precise one will do? Is it intentional?
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Are you trying to draw an analogy between market-friendly policies and stealing your wallet?
    - fallingfrog 8y ago
      Yes. They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons and made a boatload of money doing it. The whole small-government argument was insincere.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons How so? This is just empty rhetoric.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped. I do too. I think their primary motive was selfish and short-signed motivated reasoning about the effects of their ideas. They ignored how those ideas could harm others because they were so captivated by how they could help themselves.
  - beat 8y ago
    Yeah. This is such a common fallacy. "This works for me, therefore it must work for everyone."
johnchristopher 8y ago
Once you adopt that line of thinking you can't trust anybody, any arguments, any theories anymore.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Precisely so. Let me give you an example: in medieval times it was taken as fact that the king's authority came from God, that god wanted you to obey, and so forth. That sounds absurd today, but at the time no other point of view was available. The way to see through that belief is to ask, who does that belief benefit? It was in the material interest of the king to promulgate such a belief system regardless of whether it was true. In the same sense it's now in the material interest of the investor and political class to promulgate the belief that unfettered capitalism is the only rational economic system. But who benefits? This isn't my own original idea mind you. Marx called it "dialectical materialism". Certain scientific facts can be proven. You can measure things like the speed of light for instance. But ideology always reflects the material interest of some group or another.
  - johnchristopher 8y ago
    But if the king believed it as well, wasn't he also deceived ? My point is: it doesn't follow the results we observe were the objectives those people were expecting. It doesn't make them liars. But I do agree with you: `follow the money` is a useful compass to navigate those waters.

beat 8y ago

I'm not that cynical. I find the whole concept of attributing malice as the primary motive of those whom I disagree with to be one of the most basic (and common) of political failures. No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.

fallingfrog 8y ago
But while those policies didn’t benefit the public they did benefit the people who formulated the policies. That’s the smoking gun. When someone shoots themselves in the foot it is likely an accident. If someone shoots me in the foot and somehow winds up with my wallet in their hands, I’m inclined to think it was intentional.
- goodpoint 8y ago
  "smoking gun" is an understatement. neo-liberalism: "a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism." The movement has been very right wing, pro-corporate and pro-billionaire since the beginning.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    What do you mean by "right wing" here? Do you just mean "capitalist"?
    - fallingfrog 8y ago
      The term “right wing” comes from revolutionary era France, where in the general assembly the aristocracy sat on the right, and everyone else sat on the left. In the modern world the “aristocracy” would be the capitalist class, so yes, anything that benefits the capitalist class is right wing, in that sense.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        Why not just say "capitalist" since "right wing" can mean many other things? Why use the more ambiguous term when the more precise one will do? Is it intentional?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Are you trying to draw an analogy between market-friendly policies and stealing your wallet?
  - fallingfrog 8y ago
    Yes. They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons and made a boatload of money doing it. The whole small-government argument was insincere.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons How so? This is just empty rhetoric.
CharlesColeman 8y ago
> No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped. I do too. I think their primary motive was selfish and short-signed motivated reasoning about the effects of their ideas. They ignored how those ideas could harm others because they were so captivated by how they could help themselves.
- beat 8y ago
  Yeah. This is such a common fallacy. "This works for me, therefore it must work for everyone."

johnchristopher 8y ago

Once you adopt that line of thinking you can't trust anybody, any arguments, any theories anymore.

fallingfrog 8y ago
Precisely so. Let me give you an example: in medieval times it was taken as fact that the king's authority came from God, that god wanted you to obey, and so forth. That sounds absurd today, but at the time no other point of view was available. The way to see through that belief is to ask, who does that belief benefit? It was in the material interest of the king to promulgate such a belief system regardless of whether it was true. In the same sense it's now in the material interest of the investor and political class to promulgate the belief that unfettered capitalism is the only rational economic system. But who benefits? This isn't my own original idea mind you. Marx called it "dialectical materialism". Certain scientific facts can be proven. You can measure things like the speed of light for instance. But ideology always reflects the material interest of some group or another.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  But if the king believed it as well, wasn't he also deceived ? My point is: it doesn't follow the results we observe were the objectives those people were expecting. It doesn't make them liars. But I do agree with you: `follow the money` is a useful compass to navigate those waters.