Economics for idiots

[magicrat]

This thread must have designed for Tim Martin

[Jairzinho]

4 hours ago, Boss said:

I'm trying to figure out this conundrum.

 

Karl Marx - Indirectly caused the death of millions of people with his ideological aims. Allowed his kids to die in poverty whilst refusing to work. Had a baby with his babysitter and kept it secret from his wife. Hero

 

Andrew Carnegie - Built the American railroad, thousands of public libraries and Carnegie Mellon University. Gave away $350,000,000 towards world peace, charities and good deeds during his life time. Villain

No you aren't.

 

You've pretending Marx is a "hero" to, presumably, people on here. You've pretending Carnegie is a "villain" to people on here. You've then listed some Daily Star standard bollocks about both of them, dictated entirely by the fact you like one of them and don't like the other.

 

The fuck are you doing? 

[Mudface]

The main conundrum is to figure out how many logical fallacies are in that post.

[mattyq]

5 hours ago, Boss said:

I'm trying to figure out this conundrum.

 

Karl Marx - Indirectly caused the death of millions of people with his ideological aims. Allowed his kids to die in poverty whilst refusing to work. Had a baby with his babysitter and kept it secret from his wife. Hero

 

Andrew Carnegie - Built the American railroad, thousands of public libraries and Carnegie Mellon University. Gave away $350,000,000 towards world peace, charities and good deeds during his life time. Villain

What a very odd post

Marx is commonly regarded as one of our great economic and political theorists alongside Adam Smith, Hobbes, JS Mill et al

Carnegie is the original and epitome of the great American Robber Barons described as:

 

“antecedents” of the organized crime that emerged in the United States during the Prohibition era (1920–33). The robber barons transformed the wealth of the American frontierinto vast financial empires, amassing their fortunes by monopolizing essential industries. In turn, these monopolies were built upon the liberal use of tactics that are today the hallmark of organized crime: intimidation, violence, corruption, conspiracies, and fraud.

[s(k)aturation]

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

No you aren't.

 

You've pretending Marx is a "hero" to, presumably, people on here. You've pretending Carnegie is a "villain" to people on here. You've then listed some Daily Star standard bollocks about both of them, dictated entirely by the fact you like one of them and don't like the other.

 

The fuck are you doing? 

 

Indeed.

They were both shite.

 

[Boss]

5 hours ago, mattyq said:

What a very odd post

Marx is commonly regarded as one of our great economic and political theorists alongside Adam Smith, Hobbes, JS Mill et al

Carnegie is the original and epitome of the great American Robber Barons described as:

 

“antecedents” of the organized crime that emerged in the United States during the Prohibition era (1920–33). The robber barons transformed the wealth of the American frontierinto vast financial empires, amassing their fortunes by monopolizing essential industries. In turn, these monopolies were built upon the liberal use of tactics that are today the hallmark of organized crime: intimidation, violence, corruption, conspiracies, and fraud.

 

What did Carnegie do during his time that was illegal?

[Boss]

7 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

No you aren't.

 

You've pretending Marx is a "hero" to, presumably, people on here. You've pretending Carnegie is a "villain" to people on here. You've then listed some Daily Star standard bollocks about both of them, dictated entirely by the fact you like one of them and don't like the other.

 

The fuck are you doing? 

 

He is a hero to some people on here because they've shown they'll do anything to defend him. Carnegie has been painted as a villain on the other page by Angry and now also by mattyq. Did Lenin use Marx's teachings for the Communist Revolution? Did Pol Pot use his teachings for the centre point of the Khmer Rouge philosophy?

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Boss said:

 

He is a hero to some people on here because they've shown they'll do anything to defend him. Carnegie has been painted as a villain on the other page by Angry and now also by mattyq. Did Lenin use Marx's teachings for the Communist Revolution? Did Pol Pot use his teachings for the centre point of the Khmer Rouge philosophy?

I'm not a Marxist, and neither are many people on here actually. You know this. It's why you posting like Stronts is so odd.

 

But the idea that Marx is responsible for what Pol Pot did is utterly, utterly absurd.

 

It's like blaming Adam Smith for economics in Sierra Leone.

[Boss]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

I'm not a Marxist, and neither are many people on here actually. You know this. It's why you posting like Stronts is so odd.

 

But the idea that Marx is responsible for what Pol Pot did is utterly, utterly absurd.

 

It's like blaming Adam Smith for economics in Sierra Leone.

 

There are 47 references to Marxism in Pol Pot's wikipedia page alone. I suggest you read more about Pol Pot if you think Marxism had nothing to do with what he did in Cambodia.

[Jairzinho]

7 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

There are 47 references to Marxism in Pol Pot's wikipedia page alone. I suggest you read more about Pol Pot if you think Marxism had nothing to do with what he did in Cambodia.

Stop making things up. Please respond to what I've written rather than what you'd prefer I'd written.

 

 

[Boss]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

Stop making things up. Please respond to what I've written rather than what you'd prefer I'd written.

 

You said "the idea that Marx is responsible for what Pol Pot did is utterly, utterly absurd".

 

So that means he's not responsible, hence he had nothing to do with it. Just read anything about him and you'll see how heavily influenced by Marx he was.

[Jairzinho]

4 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

You said "the idea that Marx is responsible for what Pol Pot did is utterly, utterly absurd".

 

So that means he's not responsible, hence he had nothing to do with it. Just read anything about him and you'll see how heavily influenced by Marx he was.

I did say that. Correct, he isn't responsible. Being influenced by someone doesn't make the person you are influenced by responsible for your actions.

[Boss]

10 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

I did say that. Correct, he isn't responsible. Being influenced by someone doesn't make the person you are influenced by responsible for your actions.

 

Well it does when the entire centre point of your philosophy is creating a Marxist utopian society. In fact when journalists met Pol Pot and interviewed him, they'd often remark how lovely he was as a person, how kind and considerate.

 

They had to juxtapose this nice old man with the horrific brutality of his regime. And the reason behind that was he was an ideologue. The man himself wasn't crazy, it was the ideology that underpinned his actions. It was the philosophy he adhered too so strongly (the egalitarian philosophy of Marx) and his obsessive puritanism for it, that caused the atrocities in Cambodia.

[Bjornebye]

Still no response when he knows he has been had off. Again. 

[VladimirIlyich]

12 hours ago, viRdjil said:

Give us your thoughts...

One was a much better writer?

[Jairzinho]

19 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Well it does when the entire centre point of your philosophy is creating a Marxist utopian society. In fact when journalists met Pol Pot and interviewed him, they'd often remark how lovely he was as a person, how kind and considerate.

 

They had to juxtapose this nice old man with the horrific brutality of his regime. And the reason behind that was he was an ideologue. The man himself wasn't crazy, it was the ideology that underpinned his actions. It was the philosophy he adhered too so strongly (the egalitarian philosophy of Marx) and his obsessive puritanism for it, that caused the atrocities in Cambodia.

As I disagree with every single word you've written, I'm afraid we're going to have to call the discussion a day. We're not going to find anything even remotely close to agreeing on.

[VladimirIlyich]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

As I disagree with every single word you've written, I'm afraid we're going to have to call the discussion a day. We're not going to find anything even remotely close to agreeing on.

Its funny how many so called leaders and fans of Marx never seem to have read much of what he wrote,or maybe never read them at all? 'Have you read James Paterson's latest book?' 'Oh yes,massive fan,read every one.' 'Who is he again?'

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Its funny how many so called leaders and fans of Marx never seem to have read much of what he wrote,or maybe never read them at all? 'Have you read James Paterson's latest book?' 'Oh yes,massive fan,read every one.' 'Who is he again?'

We're talking about a leader who learned via someone else that didn't understand what he was reading. Honestly, the idea that Marx is responsible for Pol Pot is just for the birds. Many, many of the things he did were diametrically opposed to the teachings of Marx.

[mattyq]

Marx died in 1883 and Pol Pot took power in 1975

It's obviously all Marx's fault. His evil ghost hung around for 92 years before taking over lovely Pol Pot and forcing him to commit all the atrocities

[mattyq]

7 hours ago, skaro said:

 

Indeed.

They were both shite.

 

I'm not a Marxist by any means but there is no denying that he is one of the giants of Western political/economic theory

You can disagree with a lot of his ideas, as i do, but to label him shite is a bit... benighted

[Boss]

20 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

We're talking about a leader who learned via someone else that didn't understand what he was reading. Honestly, the idea that Marx is responsible for Pol Pot is just for the birds. Many, many of the things he did were diametrically opposed to the teachings of Marx.

 

Examples?

[mattyq]

9 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Examples?

Interesting article which debunks your nonsense

 

https://www.quora.com/Was-Pol-Pot-a-communist-or-just-a-former-student-of-Marxism-and-his-acts-were-unrelated-to-communism

[Boss]

It's a very simple question. Explain the policies Pol Pot brought in that were diametrically opposed ideologically to Marx? I'll wait.

[mattyq]

The bit about killing everybody

Dunno if you've ever been to Cambodia... if not I'd wholeheartedly recommend it, wonderful country and people.

The Killing Fields museum, though, made me physically sick

[Boss]

8 minutes ago, mattyq said:

The bit about killing everybody

Dunno if you've ever been to Cambodia... if not I'd wholeheartedly recommend it, wonderful country and people.

The Killing Fields museum, though, made me physically sick

 

Marx calls for violent revolution, so that's perfectly in sync with his views. The hatred of the ruling classes, abolishment of division of labour and the moneyless agrarian society is 100% Marx. Marx had no problem with the idea of people dying for the greater good.