cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19046336
I used to be a libertarian and believed in the whole ‘freer the market freer the people’ shit…
But then I grew up.
no shit, Sherlock. Still, glad to see it in the news.
“People who are barely surviving have extremely limited freedom,” he writes.
"All their time and energy go into earning enough money to pay for groceries, shelter, and transportation to jobs … a good society would do something about the deprivations, or reductions in freedom, for people with low incomes.
This feels like an appeal to authority. He’s an economist, not a political scientist. His Nobel prize was in contributions around screening, which is important but has jack shit to do with fascism. And he’s held some opinions before that were highly controversial to say the least, like advocating for the breakup of the eurozone. Just because he says it and he has a shiny prize doesn’t mean it’s right.
Right, because orthodox economists are so good at listening to what political scientists are saying.
The scholars outside economics have been screaming about it for years.
But it seems it takes one of their own for them to maybe potentially consider the possibility that there might exist some specific corner case in which they might need to ponder the necessity to listen. And even then, economics reductionists will still pretend it’s suspect.
This is absolutely shocking to anyone that hasn’t read basic theory. If this surprises you I strongly recommend you read the Principles of Communism to start.
I didn’t support him nor imply that he was communist, only that his conclusions can be reached by anyone who has read theory with the difference being that someone who has read theory can both identify the problem and the true solution.
