this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15989 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some genius takes:

The whole Global North/South split is a pet peeve of mine as a social scientist working in development policy. It's a bunch of outdated garbage from the Cold War that was really just a thinly veiled dogwhistle for 'white/the good Asians' and 'not white'. It doesn't hold up to any rational examination. South Africa was part of the Global North until white rule under Apartheid ended, and now they're in the Global South. southern nations.

Real educated economist chimes in:

Jason Hickel is an anthropologist (read: not economist) and degrowther. Despite having no background and seemingly almost no understanding of economics as a field, he somehow continues to get 'economics' papers published in reputable journals despite their obvious low quality. But to anyone with a cursory understanding of economics, it should be entirely unsurprising that exports from developing nations to developed are more labor intensive than vice-versa. This is not a novel conclusion and is not 'appropriation', but is entirely explained by a concept in economics called comparative advantage.

Another genius owns the article epic style

This paper is a demonstration of why input-output (IO) models are bad for economic research. IO models were used by the soviet central planners to allocate resources. IO models are bad for research for the same reason the are bad for planning. The authors look at “embodied labor” (adjusted for human capital), the idea being that any two things produced by an hour of (human capital adjusted) labor must have the same value (btw, this “labor theory of value” goes back to Adam Smith, and was later promulgated by Marx).

Other facts that the authors’ framework will struggle to explain: why is it that the poor countries that most integrated with global trade networks became rich (s korea, Japan, Singapore) or are otherwise growing quickly (china, Panama, Vietnam)? Why is it that countries with severe barriers to trade with the global north struggle to grow (n Korea, India for second half of 20th century)? That’s very hard to explain if trade with the global north is fundamentally exploitative.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RiotDoll@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

I've always hated reddit. Like, I used to be Angry Online about the existence of reddit before it was a normie hotspot - i know hexbear is running a similar system, but aglo driven discussion hierarhcy is literally discourse poison and at volume everyone is so stupid that what's popular will inevitably be really dumb - I love that the thread is filled with people throwing "degrowther" out like a slur, because it's really telling in the worst way that they worship Number Go Up and the upside of this is you can assume everything downstream in their book-length post is pure ideology and cope - and if you're smart enough to already know they're the court soothsayers whose main job is justifying American hegemony by exalting the virtue of Number and doing the equivalent of parlor tricks with numbers to categorize sub.Number.x-y in such a way that comports to their worldview and has, if not a moral justification, a "rationalized" one - something that a dumb person or a sociopath can go "hey it sucks but that's just the way It Works"

A traditionally trained Astrologer will literally have a higher predictive hit rate than these people for any matter they ostensibly went to school to "understand"

It would be funny if these people weren't a big part of how this massively unjust thing we all live under justifies itself.

(it's still pretty funny)

[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

it should be entirely unsurprising that exports from developing nations to developed are more labor intensive than vice-versa. This is not a novel conclusion and is not 'appropriation', but is entirely explained by a concept in economics called comparative advantage

so... not really arguing against Unequal Exchange as a concept, just against the name that makes you uncomfortable

[–] HotAtForty@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Akshually sweatie that’s not imperialism it’s called international finance so I’m glad I debunked that for you you’re welcome

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"He's not an economist!" Yeah, good. Fucking junk-ass non-science.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Extra rich that they’re whining about him being an anthropologist, when if economics was treated as being a serious academic field and not a hype man for capital, it would be considered a subset of anthropology or sociology.

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit you're right I can't believe I never made that connection before. The gulf in the worldviews of anthropologists and economists is probably one of the biggest in academia, crazy how that works

[–] D61@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Economics, I'm pretty sure, started out as a "soft" social science. But since it used math (and math can't be trusted :fry:) it was a very good vehicle for making "objective" arguments for doing inhumane things.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It doesn't even use math. It pretends to use math then gets pissy and throws out results when reality doesn't fit into it's wank-ass prediction curves, like the inflation-unemployment curve which is still taught as a real thing in econ 101, and it isnt until you get into behavioral economics that they start to drop hints that maybe they are wrong on some of their assumptions.

I literally just had a conversation with a PhD in economics where he (while drunk) admitted to me that they have no real idea what is going on in the economy writ large or have any actually consistent principals or practices. Very fun, definitely not worrying stuff.

[–] WaterBowlSlime@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 11 months ago

It's always pissed me off how economists want us to believe that the childish graphs they scribbled on the back of a napkin are real. They're literally just straight lines in a void based on vibes. Can you imagine if any other science tried doing that?

🤓 Here is the Phase Diagram for all materials. Yes, all materials. If you heat things up, they evaporate, it's very intuitive. I am a real scientist and you should use this chart to inform your worldview.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Philosophical statements dressed up in Cartesian graphs in order to make them look math-y.

Another good example is how many Econ 101 classes teach that banks need to draw from holdings in order to issue loans, as if leverage isn’t a thing.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They actually do lots of serious economic studies in anthropology, usually focusing on reciprocal or 'gift economies", but there are also several studies on 'energy economies' that literally tries to track joul usage through a societal system. Fun stuff, very complicated.

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Anthropology is filthy with marxists. Hell, someone went and worked at Bear Stearns or something and actually did anthropology directly at wall street dorks back in the early 00s. Can't remember what the book is called though. : (

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I've read that book! It was something about the culture of management bureaucracy, but if I remember correctly it basically said their entire communication structure was fraught with just people lying to each other.

I think the most interesting part, if I remember correctly, would be that people would lie to each other, then convince themselves they had told the truth.

[–] Beaver@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

the idea being that any two things produced by an hour of (human capital adjusted) labor must have the same value (btw, this “labor theory of value” goes back to Adam Smith, and was later promulgated by Marx).

Challenge: read the first chapter of Capital

Difficulty: impossible

[–] Red_sun_in_the_sky@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Reading just the first chapter will fry their brian agony-immense

[–] crime@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

the idea being that any two things produced by an hour of (human capital adjusted) labor must have the same value

when you definitely understand the labor theory of value

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is just the stupid "Communism is when an hour of heart surgery is equivalent in value to an hour of burger flipping" but dressed differently

[–] VILenin@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

I haven’t read any communist works, but I can definitely criticize them!

[–] meth_dragon@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

comparative advantage

hahahahaha so this is what taking psychic damage feels like

[–] Red_sun_in_the_sky@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Oh yeah, here's a word that describes a thing, methinks mentioning that is real scientific rigor

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay this is not the nazcom guy, this is some anthropologist.

Economists shouldn't throw around accusations of "almost no understanding of Economics as a field" around near anthropologists or we'll pull out all the papers explaining why "Economics as as field" is a religion with at best a tenuous relation to any actually existing economy. You're on watch Economists don't fuck with us.

Okay back to whatever y'all we're doing.

[–] Red_sun_in_the_sky@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

I swear every economics person or bussiness grad person always just say ummm the problem is xyz and not capitalism ackshually. Its booming also.

[–] ObamaSama@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago

I’m so confused by that last bit, do they think countries can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become perfectly developed without any trade? They’re literally saying “dang isn’t it weird that embargoes and harsh sanctions work” to prove their point. Yeah no shit you need to be integrated with global trade networks to gain access to resources you can’t extract/create internally. That doesn’t mean that trade deals with great powers are fair and not ruthlessly exploiting the different market conditions. Just because you get some benefit from a bad deal you’re strong armed into taking doesn’t make it not exploitative (labor). What a shock that becoming a puppet state in strategic location leads to more foreign investment, clearly this proves neo-imperialism is actually based and good for everyone