7 ms·

Interesting the Atlantic is considered to skew left

gumby 5y ago
Like The Spectator, The Atlantic has been around for over a century (Speccie must be close to 200) so such things have drifted around for a while. Genteely apolitical papers like The New Yorker are less likely to; papers written for a cause (such as The Economist) are more likely to retain some political consistency for more than a century. I agree though: the Atlantic's position is hardly left wing except in comparison with, say, Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.
- ggm 5y ago
  A lot of 1940s/50s/60s/70s views of what left-right means, have been broken for decades. Reagan would not be alt-right. He was pretty far right to me economically and politically. There are socialist economists who still respect the chicago school, god alone knows how. MMT is killing it for a lot of rightist people even though its pure keynesian. (if you call anything modern, its suddenly ok?) We fling "kleptocracy" pretty hard at modern Russia. I find it passing strange that we don't look in a mirror sometimes. We berate china for insisting that schools teach history aligned to their own political system values. Isn't that almost exactly what the religious-right wants to do in the USA? It's a myth often repeated that the financial times has a marxist editorial. Certainly it's printed on pink paper, so there's that. And a lot of marxist economosts read it. I tend to think money-journalism tells the least lies, it generally doesn't work when you do. All other journalism, I am less sure but maybe its Gell-Mann Amnesia?
  - gumby 5y ago
    > And a lot of marxist economosts read [the FT]. Marxists, Keynesians, the Austrians, “neoliberals” and Friedman all base their vocabulary and fundamentals on the labor theory of value and an economic model based on the Victorian industrial economy, which we no longer have and which was already visibly on its way out 25 years ago. I haven’t seen any good writing (not that I’m steeped in the literature) that rethinks these fundamentals. MMT is pretty bogus but to its credit nodes at least revisit some of the fundamentals.
    - ggm 5y ago
      I dont think you entirely have this right. Labour theory of value is useful in very narrow ways. It doesn't tell you anything about the money supply. The victorian economic model has been subsumed by more recent developments which include MMT, and complex derivatives and IPR. Victorian economists who had good maths would be fine. Victorian economists who believed their own bullshit might struggle. Robotics poses many questions about price/cost disfunction. As does the effect the internet/dot-com boom has had on the return on investment for tech capital outlay. (time was a telephone switch was a 50 year investment and an office PBX had a 15 year tax write off. Computers have 3y MAX life and typically return in 18 months or less, so when everything is a computer, how can it have an asset depreciation schedule more than 3 years worst-case?) IPO is a cancer on society. Don't get me started on NFTs and the chain hype. Australia, which gutted out its manufacturing, is riding a boom in Oil, Coal, Iron ore and now Lithium. we're good. (while it lasts) But the jobs distortion reality field here is huge: People fly-in fly-out so in principle there is no pressure on local housing in the rural mine locations. In reality, there is huge price pressure everywhere, irrespective. Nobody talks about the future burden of 65+ year old retirees who expect public health and return on market to fund their lifestyle from a shrinking workforce, or the massive rort in house value. When the boomers die, either millions will disappear in hyperinflation, or in depreciating asset value, or there will be a glorious transfer of wealth to the balding younger generation who secretly wished their parents had died sooner. You might hate Varoufakis, I don't know, but "adults in the room" is entertaining to read. He did a lot of work on inflationary trends in MMORPG before helping Greece pour fuel on the fire. I wish more was written about that. Massive raids on the intergalactic scene do two things: they bond the tribe, and they're potlach, destroying surplus capital to renew the energy in the game. I like reading 'the tablet' -they've always had to take the long view.
      - gumby 5y ago
        > I dont think you entirely have this right. Labour theory of value is useful in very narrow ways. It doesn't tell you anything about the money supply. I said that modern economics is dominated by people who "all base their vocabulary and fundamentals on the labor theory of value and an economic model based on the Victorian industrial economy" not Victorian economists themselves, though that's very interesting too. What I meant by Victorian economy was one dominated by largely interchangable labour working in large manufacturing facilities (now we would say "factory"). There's a pretty clear line from Smith, describing a largely preindustrial economy (his famous example was a "workshop", but he wrote more extensively, a fact most who quote him don't know), to Ricardo (technically pre victorian but the first to use modern thinking), to Marx (very insightful to really come to grips with that industrial economy for the first time; a shame his analysis and recommendations were mostly rubbish. That model of the economic drivers of an industrial economy (palimsest factories -- and workers, mass movements and very long product cycles) powered through WWII (convert an IBM card sorter factory into making machine guns? No problem!) and even into the 60s, but has long been woefully inadequate for an economy in which most jobs are non-fungible skilled jobs (even, or especially, factory jobs) and the collapse of mass movements. And even an economics built on a model of today's economy will soon be inadequate, as you say, for a robotic future where the marginal cost of production tends towards nil. But that's still a long way off. Speaking of Victorian economists themselves, it's absurd that we speak of mercantalism vs free trade in the same terms as were used 150 years ago. When I am unlucky enough to read a lazy johnny-one-note like Navarro talking about the economy I always imagine him with huge muttonchops like a character from Lytton Strachey. Of course those guys didn't really understand the macroeconomy and were stuck on the gold standard, for all the bubbles and crashes it caused. To that extent I agree what you said about their model of money, at least, being subsumed by more complex and sophisticated instruments more suited to a growing economy. Too bad the model of productive economic activity is still stuck in the past. > Australia, which gutted out its manufacturing, is riding a boom Yes, sadly Australia's long boom was really China's, as successive governments of both the coalition and labor chose to turn the country into an extractive resource province of China. The cost, the "Dutch disease", is well known but was blithely ignored. In many ways, both good and bad, I don't recognise the place any more. But compared to most places, in which I include the US, it's still the lucky country. > You might hate Varoufakis, I don't know, but "adults in the room" is entertaining to read. He did a lot of work on inflationary trends in MMORPG before helping Greece pour fuel on the fire. I wish more was written about that. Massive raids on the intergalactic scene do two things: they bond the tribe, and they're potlach, destroying surplus capital to renew the energy in the game. Hate is a strong word I almost never use, and as far as Varoufakis is concerned I don't pay much attention to him. TBH I wonder how much he really did on MMORPG economics as as far as I can tell he was almost never at the office, which I believe was part of the reason for his departure. Certainly I don't think he covered himself in glory in his time as a practicing economist in a Greek government.
  - gumby 5y ago
    > A lot of 1940s/50s/60s/70s views of what left-right means, have been broken for decades. I've always considered those terms useless unless discussing the Jacobins and Girondins
  - Anthony-G 5y ago
    I had to look up MMT as I hadn’t come across it before. Its Wikipedia article¹ introduces it as: > Modern Monetary Theory or Modern Money Theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as evidence that a currency monopolist is overly restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires. MMT is opposed to the mainstream understanding of macroeconomic theory, and has been criticized by many mainstream economists. > MMT says that governments create new money by using fiscal policy and that the primary risk once the economy reaches full employment is inflation, which can be addressed by gathering taxes to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector. MMT is debated with active dialogues about its theoretical integrity, the implications of the policy recommendations of its proponents, and the extent to which it is actually divergent from orthodox macroeconomics. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
faeriechangling 5y ago
Left of the public? Maybe. Left compared to other newsrooms? It's centre-right compared to most newsrooms.

Like The Spectator, The Atlantic has been around for over a century (Speccie must be close to 200) so such things have drifted around for a while. Genteely apolitical papers like The New Yorker are less likely to; papers written for a cause (such as The Economist) are more likely to retain some political consistency for more than a century. I agree though: the Atlantic's position is hardly left wing except in comparison with, say, Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.

ggm 5y ago
A lot of 1940s/50s/60s/70s views of what left-right means, have been broken for decades. Reagan would not be alt-right. He was pretty far right to me economically and politically. There are socialist economists who still respect the chicago school, god alone knows how. MMT is killing it for a lot of rightist people even though its pure keynesian. (if you call anything modern, its suddenly ok?) We fling "kleptocracy" pretty hard at modern Russia. I find it passing strange that we don't look in a mirror sometimes. We berate china for insisting that schools teach history aligned to their own political system values. Isn't that almost exactly what the religious-right wants to do in the USA? It's a myth often repeated that the financial times has a marxist editorial. Certainly it's printed on pink paper, so there's that. And a lot of marxist economosts read it. I tend to think money-journalism tells the least lies, it generally doesn't work when you do. All other journalism, I am less sure but maybe its Gell-Mann Amnesia?
- gumby 5y ago
  > And a lot of marxist economosts read [the FT]. Marxists, Keynesians, the Austrians, “neoliberals” and Friedman all base their vocabulary and fundamentals on the labor theory of value and an economic model based on the Victorian industrial economy, which we no longer have and which was already visibly on its way out 25 years ago. I haven’t seen any good writing (not that I’m steeped in the literature) that rethinks these fundamentals. MMT is pretty bogus but to its credit nodes at least revisit some of the fundamentals.
  - ggm 5y ago
    I dont think you entirely have this right. Labour theory of value is useful in very narrow ways. It doesn't tell you anything about the money supply. The victorian economic model has been subsumed by more recent developments which include MMT, and complex derivatives and IPR. Victorian economists who had good maths would be fine. Victorian economists who believed their own bullshit might struggle. Robotics poses many questions about price/cost disfunction. As does the effect the internet/dot-com boom has had on the return on investment for tech capital outlay. (time was a telephone switch was a 50 year investment and an office PBX had a 15 year tax write off. Computers have 3y MAX life and typically return in 18 months or less, so when everything is a computer, how can it have an asset depreciation schedule more than 3 years worst-case?) IPO is a cancer on society. Don't get me started on NFTs and the chain hype. Australia, which gutted out its manufacturing, is riding a boom in Oil, Coal, Iron ore and now Lithium. we're good. (while it lasts) But the jobs distortion reality field here is huge: People fly-in fly-out so in principle there is no pressure on local housing in the rural mine locations. In reality, there is huge price pressure everywhere, irrespective. Nobody talks about the future burden of 65+ year old retirees who expect public health and return on market to fund their lifestyle from a shrinking workforce, or the massive rort in house value. When the boomers die, either millions will disappear in hyperinflation, or in depreciating asset value, or there will be a glorious transfer of wealth to the balding younger generation who secretly wished their parents had died sooner. You might hate Varoufakis, I don't know, but "adults in the room" is entertaining to read. He did a lot of work on inflationary trends in MMORPG before helping Greece pour fuel on the fire. I wish more was written about that. Massive raids on the intergalactic scene do two things: they bond the tribe, and they're potlach, destroying surplus capital to renew the energy in the game. I like reading 'the tablet' -they've always had to take the long view.
    - gumby 5y ago
      > I dont think you entirely have this right. Labour theory of value is useful in very narrow ways. It doesn't tell you anything about the money supply. I said that modern economics is dominated by people who "all base their vocabulary and fundamentals on the labor theory of value and an economic model based on the Victorian industrial economy" not Victorian economists themselves, though that's very interesting too. What I meant by Victorian economy was one dominated by largely interchangable labour working in large manufacturing facilities (now we would say "factory"). There's a pretty clear line from Smith, describing a largely preindustrial economy (his famous example was a "workshop", but he wrote more extensively, a fact most who quote him don't know), to Ricardo (technically pre victorian but the first to use modern thinking), to Marx (very insightful to really come to grips with that industrial economy for the first time; a shame his analysis and recommendations were mostly rubbish. That model of the economic drivers of an industrial economy (palimsest factories -- and workers, mass movements and very long product cycles) powered through WWII (convert an IBM card sorter factory into making machine guns? No problem!) and even into the 60s, but has long been woefully inadequate for an economy in which most jobs are non-fungible skilled jobs (even, or especially, factory jobs) and the collapse of mass movements. And even an economics built on a model of today's economy will soon be inadequate, as you say, for a robotic future where the marginal cost of production tends towards nil. But that's still a long way off. Speaking of Victorian economists themselves, it's absurd that we speak of mercantalism vs free trade in the same terms as were used 150 years ago. When I am unlucky enough to read a lazy johnny-one-note like Navarro talking about the economy I always imagine him with huge muttonchops like a character from Lytton Strachey. Of course those guys didn't really understand the macroeconomy and were stuck on the gold standard, for all the bubbles and crashes it caused. To that extent I agree what you said about their model of money, at least, being subsumed by more complex and sophisticated instruments more suited to a growing economy. Too bad the model of productive economic activity is still stuck in the past. > Australia, which gutted out its manufacturing, is riding a boom Yes, sadly Australia's long boom was really China's, as successive governments of both the coalition and labor chose to turn the country into an extractive resource province of China. The cost, the "Dutch disease", is well known but was blithely ignored. In many ways, both good and bad, I don't recognise the place any more. But compared to most places, in which I include the US, it's still the lucky country. > You might hate Varoufakis, I don't know, but "adults in the room" is entertaining to read. He did a lot of work on inflationary trends in MMORPG before helping Greece pour fuel on the fire. I wish more was written about that. Massive raids on the intergalactic scene do two things: they bond the tribe, and they're potlach, destroying surplus capital to renew the energy in the game. Hate is a strong word I almost never use, and as far as Varoufakis is concerned I don't pay much attention to him. TBH I wonder how much he really did on MMORPG economics as as far as I can tell he was almost never at the office, which I believe was part of the reason for his departure. Certainly I don't think he covered himself in glory in his time as a practicing economist in a Greek government.
- gumby 5y ago
  > A lot of 1940s/50s/60s/70s views of what left-right means, have been broken for decades. I've always considered those terms useless unless discussing the Jacobins and Girondins
- Anthony-G 5y ago
  I had to look up MMT as I hadn’t come across it before. Its Wikipedia article¹ introduces it as: > Modern Monetary Theory or Modern Money Theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as evidence that a currency monopolist is overly restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires. MMT is opposed to the mainstream understanding of macroeconomic theory, and has been criticized by many mainstream economists. > MMT says that governments create new money by using fiscal policy and that the primary risk once the economy reaches full employment is inflation, which can be addressed by gathering taxes to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector. MMT is debated with active dialogues about its theoretical integrity, the implications of the policy recommendations of its proponents, and the extent to which it is actually divergent from orthodox macroeconomics. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

faeriechangling 5y ago

Left of the public? Maybe. Left compared to other newsrooms? It's centre-right compared to most newsrooms.