At 12:37 PM 05/19/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>I don't know that I'd bother following this list if Brad weren't on it.
No-one has called for kicking him off, that I know of. I, for one, was
asking him to be polite.
>Not becuase I enjoy the fights, but because he offers an informed and
>vigorous response to the knee-jerk statisim that otherwise dominates the
>list. I call it statism rather than Marxism because I know of no other
>forum where the policies of Juan Peron, the South Korean government and
>state media monopolies (monopolies, not the Beeb) could all get such
>sympathetic hearings. I know that not everybody shares these views, but I
>do think that the overall tone of this list is as reflexively statist as
>Schleifer is anti-state. In both cases that reflex leaves a lot of good
>insight as roadkill.
I don't know anything about Schliefer (who seems to have profited from his
dealings with the state), but Brad is very pro-state. He favors the US
state, and its proxy, the IMF (which itself is part of the embryonic world
state, which also includes the US in the dominant position). He used to
work for the US Treasury in an executive position and does not seem to
have abandoned the kind of statism that that organization favors.
This is the kind of statism, where the democratic control of the state is
supposed to be as limited as possible, so that the state's monopoly of
violence is used mostly to protect established property rights (and, in
effect, the only the interests of the propertied are represented). Of
course, the state is supposed to do some good things for the non-propertied
people, to maintain its legitimacy and the legitimacy of the property
system, but this is supposed to be done in a father-knows-best technocratic
way. (Perhaps this misrepresents Brad's view, but I know I'll never hear a
correction.)
BTW & FWIW, I'm an anti-statist (though not an anarchist). By subordinating
the state to democratic control, I would like to end the division between
state and society, effectively ending the status of the state as an
institution that dominates society.
>I do agree that Brad can be condescending at times, and also that
>tit-for-tat may not be the most constructive response. However, I think
>there's an unwillingness on this list to face the issue of civility. Jim
>can, in the same message, rubbish tit-for-tat and ridicule Brad's appeal
>to the rules of the US Congress, the latter on grounds entirely irrelevant
>to the issue at hand (courtesy). So what's your solution, Jim? Michael K.
>says he's not attacking Brad personally, but attacking the economics
>profession. That misses the point.
There's a big difference between _attacking an individual_ (ad hominem) and
_attacking an argument_. The rules of Congress may encourage politeness,
but that's a democracy of the few, of the elite and powerful. We need to
put said "democracy" into context, which is what I did. I was NOT attacking
Brad personally. However, Brad engages in personal attacks regularly. (or
is my perception wrong? he's the one who throws words like bullsh*t around.)
>Many comments in response to Brad (not just by Michael K) take the
>following form:
>
>neo-liberal economists condone starving people to death in the name of the
>market
>Brad is a neo liberal economist (but nothing personal)
He can always say "I'm not that _type_ of neoliberal economist." In fact,
he's done so before. In fact, I try to make a point of attacking that brand
of economics rather than Brad himself (though sometimes I falter) because I
want him to have an "out."
Fred, you have to remember that Brad is a "big boy" who can deal with
debate and acrimony. After all, he worked in the Clinton administration. He
hasn't been sequestered in the allegedly calm groves of academe. He doesn't
seem like a shrinking violet at all.
>When the argument is being put in terms as serious and emotive as those
>reflected in the first line, the second line is not an innocuous judgement.
I don't see why an attack on an abstraction -- "neoliberal economists" --
is emotive. It's attacks on _people_ that are emotive.
>It is also entirely unnecessary to the argument at hand, unless what you
>want is the opportunity to beat up a representative of the neo-liberal
>establishment.
He always has the opportunity to say that his opinions are different, that
neoliberal economics isn't what you folks say it is, that his branch of
neoliberalism is social democratic, or that he's not a neoliberal at all.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
