Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
It is true that I am not an economist. I have become a student of economics, especially the history of economics, economic thought and its role in intellectual history in the USA. I am hardly alone in the world in my views on the current state of economics. The whole heterodox end of the spectrum is well aware of the same deficiencies of which I complain and their views inform mine: Solow, Colander, Stiglitz, Hudson, Jamie Gailbraith and his father before him, etc., etc.

And then there are the terms neo-liberal and 'mainstream economics' about the use of which you complain. As you say, we have been through this before. On FB we had a long discussion about the term 'neo-liberal' with you claiming I didn't understand what it was, my stating the commonly accepted definition and you agreeing that that was exactly how you defined it.

I had not wanted to press the issue, but, as you have, I will proceed. What I see is you not liking the term and evading the meaning. This is because it applies too closely to you and your views, IMO. Your champion in the '16 elections was Hillzilla and you have been very critical of those of us who complained that she did not actually support progressive policies. Nor do you want to accept any real inquiry into why she lost. To you it is clear that that is because of Bernie supporters.

The Clintons are the US equivalent of Tony Blair: US neo-liberals who abandoned unions and, with unions, the working class as such. IMO, they did good work on a lot of serious social issues from race to LGBT, but I don't see abandoning economic issues as a feasible path to electoral dominance. Even Bill Clinton's slogan was "Its the economy, stupid". Had she been more convincing in her adoption of Sander's proposals after the convention she could well have carried WI, MI and PA. She didn't turn out enough of the people Sanders had energized.

Then there is your anger. "Get out of my god-damned way.  They're in." I understand being angry. But the intensity of your anger has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments. That you act as though it does is a problem for you to deal with, not an argument. Yours is not the only opinion or the only ego to be offended by the outcome of the 2016 election. People can and do disagree with you on many points. Spend more time trying to find common ground with opponents and less on trying to de-legitimize their opinions and the comity of your comments will improve.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Feb 12th, 2017 at 11:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series