3 ms·

>"You've got sympathies for Ebenezer Scrooge!" is possibly the bottom of the barrel of counters if you seriously want good outcomes. Honestly, I'm not so sure

>"You've got sympathies for Ebenezer Scrooge!" is possibly the bottom of the barrel of counters if you seriously want good outcomes. Honestly, I'm not so sure about that. Pointing out that someone is making the same arguments as an archetype of cruelty should be cause for reflection at the very least.

roenxi 5y ago
Scrooge isn't an archetype for cruelty though, he is miserliness. And that also goes to why allusion is a bad approach - interpreting a story isn't that much less political than politics except the topic gets derailed into a literal fantasy hypothetical. Dickens didn't exactly take a statistical sample of the people in London to come up with the story, he had a conclusion and was constructing a situation where it made sense. The fact he did so in an eloquent and entertaining way is not basis for attempting to come up with a policy. Nobody should be using 1850s popular literature as a serious contribution. We've got more than 150 years of policy experiments and records of outcomes when it comes to labour policy since then. Someone who has read up on that should be leading the debate, not the Ghost of Christmas Past.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Scrooge isn't an archetype for cruelty though, he is miserliness. He absolutely is an archetype of cruelty. Not in the sadistic sense, but in the sense that he was completely unsympathetic to the plight of those around him and allowed them to suffer needlessly (until the three visits). >Dickens didn't exactly take a statistical sample of the people in London to come up with the story He didn't need to. A statistical sample of the city of London "measured him", in a way, when they all read the book and it resonated with their experience. >Nobody should be using 1850s popular literature as a serious contribution. Nobody is suggesting we base economic policy on a fictional story from 150 years ago. I am, and I suspect parent is as well, reminding you that your argument sounds cruel and miserly. This is a valid and useful heuristic, especially considering that your argument is: - Deliberately misleading (or at best, ignorant) with the "2%" statistic - Completely ignorant of the human experience (You actually argued that people leaving behind their friends, family and community to "move to a low cost of living area in this era of fantastic communication and easy travel" was somehow progress, as well as suggesting that workers shouldn't be paid enough to support a family because not everyone has a family - the logical outcome being that people cannot afford to start a family and their lineage simply dies.) - Lacking in substance in general (you don't provide a single reason or shred of evidence as to how or why your ideal world would actually have a more prosperous, or stable, or healthy, or "better" society in any way - just that it would align better with the way you think the world should be.) >We've got more than 150 years of policy experiments and records of outcomes when it comes to labour policy since then. And yet the experts still fuck it up on a daily basis. Look at the response of the IMF to the Asian Crisis of 1997, or compare Europe's response to the GFC to Australia's. Lee Kuan Yew has openly stated in interviews before that part of the reason he was so successful was that he ignored international economic experts when they were trying to push numerically-backed bullshit ideology onto Singapore. >Someone who has read up on that should be leading the debate, not the Ghost of Christmas Past. In all seriousness, the fact that a book from 150 years ago is still seen as relevant today suggests that maybe we shouldn't just throw out its messages as worthless. Its ideas have survived almost two centuries of harsh memetic competition. How long have the current economic ideas been around for?
  - roenxi 5y ago
    roenxi: I'm not sure the minimum wage needs to be high enough to raise a 3 person family. And the strategy should look something like a Plan-Do-Check-Act rather than arguing about 1850s literature. [???] > I am, and I suspect parent is as well, reminding you that your argument sounds cruel and miserly. Not really sure how we got from there to here, but I continue to hold this up as an examples of how polite and rational conversation would have been a much better bet rather than calling me names. It isn't an argument, it doesn't have evidence behind it and it is drawing the conversation away from discussing the very real non-fictional issues. It also isn't true. Argument by allusion isn't reasonable.
    - marcellus23 5y ago
      > I continue to hold this up as an examples of how polite and rational conversation would have been a much better bet rather than calling me names The only comment in your thread that you responded to was the one calling you names. You didn’t respond (as of this posting, at least) to any of the half dozen other comments that bring up valid points. Who’s drawing the conversation away?
      - roenxi 5y ago
        I don't have anything to add about those posts; they're making actual points. Often good ones, with reasoning. But this thread was especially to point out this this sort of policy-by-literary-allusion is stupid and also exactly the sort of thing people would try once Dickens quotes get flying.
        Talanes 5y ago
        You were content to play the policy-by-literary-allusion game in your top comment. It feels like you only developed an opinion against it after being insulted-by-literary-allusion.
        roenxi 5y ago
lordnacho 5y ago
Reflection sure, but do you do when someone pulls out their Ayn Rand to explain to you their views on economics? Fictional works can highlight some issues but there's a limit to how good an argument they can make.
commandlinefan 5y ago
[flagged]

roenxi 5y ago

Scrooge isn't an archetype for cruelty though, he is miserliness. And that also goes to why allusion is a bad approach - interpreting a story isn't that much less political than politics except the topic gets derailed into a literal fantasy hypothetical. Dickens didn't exactly take a statistical sample of the people in London to come up with the story, he had a conclusion and was constructing a situation where it made sense. The fact he did so in an eloquent and entertaining way is not basis for attempting to come up with a policy. Nobody should be using 1850s popular literature as a serious contribution. We've got more than 150 years of policy experiments and records of outcomes when it comes to labour policy since then. Someone who has read up on that should be leading the debate, not the Ghost of Christmas Past.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>Scrooge isn't an archetype for cruelty though, he is miserliness. He absolutely is an archetype of cruelty. Not in the sadistic sense, but in the sense that he was completely unsympathetic to the plight of those around him and allowed them to suffer needlessly (until the three visits). >Dickens didn't exactly take a statistical sample of the people in London to come up with the story He didn't need to. A statistical sample of the city of London "measured him", in a way, when they all read the book and it resonated with their experience. >Nobody should be using 1850s popular literature as a serious contribution. Nobody is suggesting we base economic policy on a fictional story from 150 years ago. I am, and I suspect parent is as well, reminding you that your argument sounds cruel and miserly. This is a valid and useful heuristic, especially considering that your argument is: - Deliberately misleading (or at best, ignorant) with the "2%" statistic - Completely ignorant of the human experience (You actually argued that people leaving behind their friends, family and community to "move to a low cost of living area in this era of fantastic communication and easy travel" was somehow progress, as well as suggesting that workers shouldn't be paid enough to support a family because not everyone has a family - the logical outcome being that people cannot afford to start a family and their lineage simply dies.) - Lacking in substance in general (you don't provide a single reason or shred of evidence as to how or why your ideal world would actually have a more prosperous, or stable, or healthy, or "better" society in any way - just that it would align better with the way you think the world should be.) >We've got more than 150 years of policy experiments and records of outcomes when it comes to labour policy since then. And yet the experts still fuck it up on a daily basis. Look at the response of the IMF to the Asian Crisis of 1997, or compare Europe's response to the GFC to Australia's. Lee Kuan Yew has openly stated in interviews before that part of the reason he was so successful was that he ignored international economic experts when they were trying to push numerically-backed bullshit ideology onto Singapore. >Someone who has read up on that should be leading the debate, not the Ghost of Christmas Past. In all seriousness, the fact that a book from 150 years ago is still seen as relevant today suggests that maybe we shouldn't just throw out its messages as worthless. Its ideas have survived almost two centuries of harsh memetic competition. How long have the current economic ideas been around for?
- roenxi 5y ago
  roenxi: I'm not sure the minimum wage needs to be high enough to raise a 3 person family. And the strategy should look something like a Plan-Do-Check-Act rather than arguing about 1850s literature. [???] > I am, and I suspect parent is as well, reminding you that your argument sounds cruel and miserly. Not really sure how we got from there to here, but I continue to hold this up as an examples of how polite and rational conversation would have been a much better bet rather than calling me names. It isn't an argument, it doesn't have evidence behind it and it is drawing the conversation away from discussing the very real non-fictional issues. It also isn't true. Argument by allusion isn't reasonable.
  - marcellus23 5y ago
    > I continue to hold this up as an examples of how polite and rational conversation would have been a much better bet rather than calling me names The only comment in your thread that you responded to was the one calling you names. You didn’t respond (as of this posting, at least) to any of the half dozen other comments that bring up valid points. Who’s drawing the conversation away?
    - roenxi 5y ago
      I don't have anything to add about those posts; they're making actual points. Often good ones, with reasoning. But this thread was especially to point out this this sort of policy-by-literary-allusion is stupid and also exactly the sort of thing people would try once Dickens quotes get flying.
      - Talanes 5y ago
        You were content to play the policy-by-literary-allusion game in your top comment. It feels like you only developed an opinion against it after being insulted-by-literary-allusion.
        roenxi 5y ago

lordnacho 5y ago

Reflection sure, but do you do when someone pulls out their Ayn Rand to explain to you their views on economics? Fictional works can highlight some issues but there's a limit to how good an argument they can make.

commandlinefan 5y ago

[flagged]