Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by iceaura, Jun 24, 2019.
Speaking of parroting.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
They live in a world without physical facts - everything they read or see is equivalently propaganda, equivalently bullshit, equivalently biased and one-sided and deceptive.
That's how Reaganomics was sold in the first place - the sheer idiocy of "supply side" economic structure was buried under a full-bore propaganda campaign against its critics and anything they tried to say in public. The goal was to depict all criticism of Republican governing initiatives as equivalently fact-free, equivalently bullshit, equivalently partisan, equivalently self-interested, equivalently corrupt, in the view of the American citizenry.
That goal was largely achieved, with the results visible in the posts above and everywhere else in American public discussion.
I was referring to your parroting an article in Naked Capitalism.
We know. The reply was specific to that reference - to repeat:
- - - -
- - - -
As noted: the bandarlog live in a world without physical realities independent of rhetoric and source. "We all say so, so it must be true" is no mere cheerleader's chant - it is their only remaining way of identifying truth.
Posting documented facts about the US economy one finds in linked supporting articles that in turn link to primary sources - using ones own words and paraphrasing throughout - thereby becomes "parroting", to these guys - equivalent to their own repetition of the claims of the rightwing corporate authoritarian media feed, vocabulary and all.
(Except when they denigrate the claims as being unsupported and baseless and so forth - afaik they haven't yet fallen to describing such a post with such a source as both parroting and unsupported, at least not in the same reply).
Everything they read is equivalently propaganda, equivalently bullshit, equivalently "parroting":
(a Peewee usage, like "bandarlog" and so forth - they seldom come up with their own language, which experienced high school composition teachers will recognize as a symptom of seldom having their own thoughts).
physical fact plays no role whatsoever.
When you are quoting from Naked Capitalism and are worried about small banks and subprime consumer credit (card) debt, you are just looking for something to parrot and to be worried about.
The author uses as an example a family with a $200k income but they just can't get ahead because things cost more now than they did years ago. Using examples of cat food from before the big inflationary period of the 80's and applying it to the low inflation period since then, it's very intellectually dishonest.
If you want to whine about a family with a $200k income that can't afford cat food...be my guest.
You are a perfect example of why some people will just never get ahead. It is going to help you to take the rest of us down with you. Yanno...Peace out.
I wasn't quoting (why can't you guys get anything right?).
And yes, I was posting there about one worrisome aspect of the US consumer debt bubble - especially in a thread about the consequences of Reaganomics, since it is one of the more serious and damaging consequences.
Which beats whatever you're posting about. Do you even know, any more?
I didn't. Why are you addressing me with irrelevancies that do not appear in my posts?
Most of the bottom 2/3 of the US economy, for example, will not be able to match their parent's prosperity unless Reaganomics is replaced and the US trend to increasing inequality is reversed. Neither will the country as a whole remain as prosperous as it was before Reaganomics took hold - economic inequality at current US levels cripples the economies it afflicts.
Btw: The over/under on how many posts it will take these guys - collectively, on average, in sequence - to get around to addressing the thread topic instead of obsessing about the personal circumstances of one poster in it is over three now and rising.
(from this worthy bookmark: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/currentissue)
That is a known consequence of rising economic inequality, after it surpasses any reasonable role as reward for contribution. Various mechanisms have been proposed, some more plausible than others, but the apparently causal correlation (timing, ubiquity, cross-cultural manifestation, etc) is simply a physical fact.
And an illustration of the central fact of US economic health: almost every measure of personal wellbeing - from lifespan to working hours, from adult height to drug abuse rates, from net wealth to accidental injury, from hours spent in personal contact with children to time spent in jail, features a negative inflection (a significant change toward the bad in the second derivative of a fitted logistic or other suitable curve) on or mechanistically timed after the restructuring of the US taxation and regulatory structure labeled "Reaganomics".
It's been a blight. It's not getting better.
Recall the discussion on this forum about the employment rate vs the unemployment rate as an economic indicator? I got caught up in the shit-for-brains aspect of the wingnut take, and overlooked the effect it has on child poverty (which will blight the future of the US, not just the current mess):
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
lets also not forgot reaganomics is directly to the massive expansion of the us national debt. the debt before reagan was only around a trillion dollars. since the republican party has gone whole hog its massively increased. lets not forget that the debt by percentage increased by the largest percentages in the post reagan era( when the debt expoloded) have happened under republicans. this is by design. republican intentionally increase the debt to prevent to country from inacting progressive programs
Oren Cass - an economic advisor to Mitt Romney, and someone whose research at the Manhattan Institute has informed rightwing politicians and initiatives for a few years now https://www.orencass.com
- recently published his latest attempt at a quantified index of "thriving":
what a middle class life's yearly basics cost in terms of median paid working weeks.
He found that in 1985 it (the basic middle class life) cost 30 weeks of median paid work for a man, 45 for a woman.
In 2018, that basic life cost 53 weeks for the man, 66 for the woman.
A quote from scholar Cass, conservative advisor to Republican politicians for many years:
Now that is obviously not quite true. There are some economists, lefties especially, who had this trend spotted before 1985 even - it was always part of the analysis of Reaganomics found among leftwing analysts, when the public was still innocent of the effects to come. But the overt and public recognition of this fact now is worth noticing - the possibility that Trump would clear the vision of some Republicans by presenting the standard Republican views too loudly and clearly and enthusiastically,
the exaggerated agreement verified by researchers as among the most effective techniques of persuasion (to the opposite view) available in ordinary social circumstances,
may not be completely wishful thinking.
Separate names with a comma.