Right-Wing Discussion Thread Part Two

[Pandect]

The whole left/right thing I find a bit odd. Especially when you put communists on one side and facists on the other. It's all statist socialist collectivism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9mPo6goz-8

[Korouse]

The whole left/right thing I find a bit odd. Especially when you put communists on one side and facists on the other. It's all statist socialist collectivism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9mPo6goz-8

Is simply appearing in a group to protest a certain thing collectivist? That's a pretty broad definition.

(you have to admit that chicago protest was pretty glorious)

[Northern Davincia]

Signature.

Which tribe, my good friend?

[Jiisakiiwigaan]

Signature.

Which tribe, my good friend?

Wampanoag.

[Sheyt Clor]

So. America. Its gonna fall. Anyone know of a house in Canada I can purchase?

[Drown]

So. America. Its gonna fall. Anyone know of a house in Canada I can purchase?

We can make America great again y'know.

[Living Stones]

So. America. Its gonna fall. Anyone know of a house in Canada I can purchase?

If America falls, Canada falls w/ it.

[The East Marches]

I would disagree but I can see what your logic is.

What are your thoughts on the rational expectations adaptive expectations model?

Edit: I just saw your edit, and changed mine accordingly.

Well I think it is just that, a model. Past experience is just apart of the many things that agents utilize in the decision making process. Humans are neither like robots which become stronger every time after breaking down - agents can make the same mistake twice. And to quote Keynes, "in the end we are all dead," therefore information can be lost, preferences may change, et cetera. I think my position may be better articulated by this article by Nikolay Gertchev.

That was an excellently written paper. I hope you will excuse my long delay in reply as I have been busy due to Memorial Day and wanted to write up a proper reply.

I found his critique of both the adaptive expectations and rational expectations models to be very insightful. However, I do disagree with the paper on a few salient points. Namely that the adaptive expectations model itself is solely reliant on past prices (Nerlove's model). While this is true, we do formulate an idea of how the future price level will go based on the past, I don't believe that it totally disqualifies the premise of Nerlove's point. We all use past experiences to influence our future decisions. The author makes the point that this defeats the "forwarding looking" expectations of the suppliers. How can you look forward without knowing what exactly to look for? Some influence of the past is clearly necessary.

I did agree with the author's critique of rational expectations model is self-contradictory in many cases. Not to mention the self-reinforcing bias it produces that leads both neo-Classical and neo-Keynesians to claim that it supports them wholey. Best quote from it was " to put it differently, it must be presumed that subjective beliefs alone determine objective reality." I felt the author could have touched on how individual expectations do not scale up well to the agregate. It was a great line of thought but it seemed to get cut off.

Overall, it was very well written, structured well and I checked the sources (it past needless to say). I would expect nothing less from the Mises Institute. I may not agree with everything the say but they certainly do say it well. It's nice to read things they put out from time to time.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So. America. Its gonna fall. Anyone know of a house in Canada I can purchase?

And the right claims to be patriotic. Beneath much nationalist fervor, I tend to find opportunism, hypocrisy, and a convincing facade of aggressively-principled anger hiding what's ultimately known as cowardice.

I seriously doubt you'd find Canada a more politically-amiable place than the US anyway. I was going to comment on it being unlikely you're old enough to possess property - or wealthy enough to afford such a move - but I'll just touch on the hypocritical tendency I've noticed, among certain Americans. These Americans oppose taking in war refugees, forced to flee destruction caused by our bombs - but are entirely self-assured in the assumption that they can move to any country they damn well please, solely because the president/president-elect/frontrunning candidate has views that don't quite line up 100% with their own.

The utter stupidity of certain Western sociopolitical tendencies is absolutely infuriating.

[The East Marches]

So. America. Its gonna fall. Anyone know of a house in Canada I can purchase?

And the right claims to be patriotic. Beneath much nationalist fervor, I tend to find opportunism, hypocrisy, and a convincing facade of aggressively-principled anger hiding what's ultimately known as cowardice.

I seriously doubt you'd find Canada a more politically-amiable place than the US anyway. I was going to comment on it being unlikely you're old enough to possess property - or wealthy enough to afford such a move - but I'll just touch on the hypocritical tendency I've noticed, among certain Americans. These Americans oppose taking in war refugees, forced to flee destruction caused by our bombs - but are entirely self-assured in the assumption that they can move to any country they damn well please, solely because the president/president-elect/frontrunning candidate has views that don't quite line up 100% with their own.

The utter stupidity of certain Western sociopolitical tendencies is absolutely infuriating.

Unlike those war refugees, most Americans have a cultural background rooted in the West and the current generation is more well-educated than those previously. Not to mention the average American has money while the average war refugee brings nothing. However, that is detracting from the fact that most of those who make those kind of claims of wanting to move, are infact saying so out of hyperbole.

"Beneath much nationalist fervor, I tend to find opportunism, hypocrisy, and a convincing facade of aggressively-principled anger hiding what's ultimately known as cowardice. "

My favorite part is that this could very easily be an allegory for yourself. I hope you see the irony in it.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

My favorite part is that this could very easily be an allegory for yourself. I hope you see the irony in it.

I do my best to avoid any sort of hypocrisy, so feel free to point some out. *shrug* Opportunism depends, I suppose. And the anger, well, believe what you like. All conjecture anyway.

[Old Tyrannia]

So. America. Its gonna fall. Anyone know of a house in Canada I can purchase?

And the right claims to be patriotic. Beneath much nationalist fervor, I tend to find opportunism, hypocrisy, and a convincing facade of aggressively-principled anger hiding what's ultimately known as cowardice.

"The right" doesn't claim anything. People on the right claim things, and yes, some of them are indeed hypocrites. But not all rightist are hypocrites or opportunists. And left-wingers are hardly beyond reproach when it comes to these things.

[Saiwania]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5H4h1Z1nc

So Donald Trump has a private corporate 757 that he plans to use instead of Air Force One if he's elected. It is pretty nice. He will be the type to always fly in style. Mahogany furnishings, gold trim, premium leather, the works.

[Vahagn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5H4h1Z1nc

So Donald Trump has a private corporate 757 that he plans to use instead of Air Force One if he's elected. It is pretty nice. He will be the type to always fly in style. Mahogany furnishings, gold trim, premium leather, the works.

But Trump bankrupted!

[Korouse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5H4h1Z1nc

So Donald Trump has a private corporate 757 that he plans to use instead of Air Force One if he's elected. It is pretty nice. He will be the type to always fly in style. Mahogany furnishings, gold trim, premium leather, the works.

Travel in style, while he puts forward policies to lower people's wages and cut any kind of benefits they have in order to lower a debt that's not even as much of a crisis as people make it out to be.

It's more disgusting than aesthetically pleasing.

[The Kievan People]

He really hasn't taken positions that are far from plutocratic interests. You're completely wrong.

If that was really the case, he wouldn't be advocating for extremely low taxes on businesses and the rich - which leads to American worker's benefits being cut, unless he wants an even higher deficit - and he also vocally supported lower wages so that we could "compete" with other countries like China who American corporations now see as a competitor. Just from that, he's not at all far from what the Plutocrats want. Hilary or Trump, they win.

A US politician promises lower taxes? Incredible!

Americans, least your forgot, are generally amenable to the idea people should "pull their weight". Lower, flatter taxes are entirely in line with what a large segment of Americans, even the majority, believe is the way society should be ordered. True plutocrats like Warren Buffet are far more enthusiastic about progressive taxation than average Americans. Exploiting the arbitrage between overseas or foreign labourers wages and Americans purchasing power is the root of profits in the modern economy, but the most forward-looking wealthy realize that the stagnation of wages and dearth of investment is slowly strangling the consumers on which they depend for profits. It simply doesn't work if you sell your Chinese made products in China.

The natural solution is to sacrifice some of their wealth to taxation and redistribution, so that they may sell for longer. Hence the leftward drift of the upper class.

American corporations generally do not see China as a competitor. It is the heart and soul of their business model. The ideal for US business is to be not producers or even distributors but facilitators, who use their "brands" to connect the customers with the sellers and distributors. Then they are freed from all the overhead and risk associated with actually inventing, producing and distributing things. US competitiveness is largely irrelevant to them and is mostly a concern of legacy industries that are fighting to retain their market share.

[Dejanic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5H4h1Z1nc

So Donald Trump has a private corporate 757 that he plans to use instead of Air Force One if he's elected. It is pretty nice. He will be the type to always fly in style. Mahogany furnishings, gold trim, premium leather, the works.

Aren't you a National Socialist? First of all I doubt Trump would like a Neo-NAZI supporting him, and second of all wouldn't you belong more on the Left-wing discussion thread? Or perhaps your own "third position" thread, since Neo-Nazism is hardly right wing.

[Freefall11111]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5H4h1Z1nc

So Donald Trump has a private corporate 757 that he plans to use instead of Air Force One if he's elected. It is pretty nice. He will be the type to always fly in style. Mahogany furnishings, gold trim, premium leather, the works.

Aren't you a National Socialist? First of all I doubt Trump would like a Neo-NAZI supporting him, and second of all wouldn't you belong more on the Left-wing discussion thread? Or perhaps your own "third position" thread, since Neo-Nazism is hardly right wing.

Nazism is right-wing.

[Drown]

Aren't you a National Socialist? First of all I doubt Trump would like a Neo-NAZI supporting him, and second of all wouldn't you belong more on the Left-wing discussion thread? Or perhaps your own "third position" thread, since Neo-Nazism is hardly right wing.

Nazism is right-wing.

third position actually

[Dejanic]

Aren't you a National Socialist? First of all I doubt Trump would like a Neo-NAZI supporting him, and second of all wouldn't you belong more on the Left-wing discussion thread? Or perhaps your own "third position" thread, since Neo-Nazism is hardly right wing.

Nazism is right-wing.

It's third positionist, it's not traditionally left wing or right wing, but in purely economic terms a Neo-Nazi like Saiwania has more in common with the left than with the right certainly, as does Donald Trump actually (he's basically to the left of Hilary economically).

[Freefall11111]

Nazism is right-wing.

third position actually

The only people who claim Nazis are "third position" are edgy Nazis who want to be cool and pretend they're not part of the standard political spectrum when they really are.

Nazism fits perfectly within the left-right spectrum if we're going off of its traditional, and correct, definition of social hierarchy.

[Freefall11111]

It's third positionist, it's not traditionally left wing or right wing,

See above.

as does Donald Trump actually (he's basically to the left of Hilary economically).

Depends on what day of the week it is.

[Dejanic]

third position actually

The only people who claim Nazis are "third position" are edgy Nazis who want to be cool and pretend they're not part of the standard political spectrum when they really are.

Nazism fits perfectly within the left-right spectrum if we're going off of its traditional, and correct, definition of social hierarchy.

Not at all, I'd place it on the Left alongside Stalinism and Maoism if you're going to place it based purely on economics, there's nothing inherently right wing about a big Socialist proclaimed state mass murdering people, the only people who claim Nazism is inherently right wing are edgy far-leftists where as most academics and political scientists will point out its third positionist nature, combined with left leaning economics

[Drown]

third position actually

The only people who claim Nazis are "third position" are edgy Nazis who want to be cool and pretend they're not part of the standard political spectrum when they really are.

Nazism fits perfectly within the left-right spectrum if we're going off of its traditional, and correct, definition of social hierarchy.

Hm okay then I'm a nazi nice to meet you!

[Freefall11111]

The only people who claim Nazis are "third position" are edgy Nazis who want to be cool and pretend they're not part of the standard political spectrum when they really are.

Nazism fits perfectly within the left-right spectrum if we're going off of its traditional, and correct, definition of social hierarchy.

Not at all, I'd place it on the Left alongside Stalinism and Maoism if you're going to place it based purely on economics, there's nothing inherently right wing about a big Socialist proclaimed state mass murdering people, the only people who claim Nazism is inherently right wing are edgy far-leftists where as most academics and political scientists will point out its third positionist nature, combined with left leaning economics

The left-right spectrum isn't just about economics. You can't just say "well, the Nazis liked government intervention in the market in order to fuel the war machine, and government intervention is leftist, therefore Nazism is leftist". When it comes down to it, the left-right spectrum is about whether you believe social hierarchy is necessary or desirable for society. Nazism inherently loves social hierarchy.