On June 15, 2018, the OECD released their report – A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility – which provided “new evidence on social mobility in the context of increased inequalities of income and opportunities in OECD and selected emerging economies”. If you are still wondering why the mainstream progressive political parties have lost ground in recent years, or why the Italian political landscape has shifted from a struggle between ‘progressive’ and conservative to one between anti-establishment and establishment (the latter including both the traditional progressive and conservative forces which are now virtually indistinguishable) then this evidence will help. It shows categorically that neoliberalism has failed to deliver prosperity for all. While the full employment era unambiguously created a dynamic environment where upward social mobility and declining inequalities in income, wealth, opportunity were the norm, the more recent neoliberal era has deliberately stifled those processes. It is no longer true that ‘all boats rise on a high tide’. The point is that this is a situation that our governments have allowed to arise and which they can alter if they so choose. We should be forcing them to restore the processes that deliver upward mobility. And that is where the “truth sandwich” comes in. Progressive politicians that bang on about ‘taxing the rich to deliver services to the poor’ or who ask ‘where is the money going to come from’ or who claim the ‘bond markets will rebel’ and all the rest of the neoliberal lying drivel should familiarise themselves with the way the sandwich works. It is a very tasty treat if you assemble it properly.Progressive strategy.
Satyameva Jayate meaning, "Truth alone triumphs" (Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6). is the national motto of India. It is similar to John 8:32 (NSRV), "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The ‘truth sandwich’ and the impacts of neoliberalism
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
22 comments:
“Progressive politicians that bang on about ‘taxing the rich to deliver services to the poor’ or who ask ‘where is the money going to come from’ or who claim the ‘bond markets will rebel’ and all the rest of the neoliberal lying drivel“
Progressives now are liars???
"Truth alone triumphs"
Not within the dialectical method it doesn’t... both the true and the false are allowed to coexist.... doesn’t work...
Actually the truth mentioned in both Mundaka Upanishad and John's Gospel is the whole. In Islam, one of the names of God is Truth (Ar. al haqq also transliterated al haq)
The purpose of the Hegelian dialectic as philosophical "theology" is to realize the whole, that is, what philosophers call the Absolute and theologians call God. The way is through successive transcending of the opposites. Think, for example, of Nicholas of Cusa's characterization of God as coincidenta oppositorum. While Hegel never referred to Cusa, there is an argument that Hegel not only knew or Cusa but also made use of him — without attribution. Mysticism is about immediate realization, which Hegel viewed as "romantic," and lacking in rigor. For him, philosophy should provide a rigorous account based on reason.
In Hegel's account, opposite POV's clash and the outcome appears to be contradiction in the rigorous sense of categorical logic in that a proposition and its opposite can be be true simultaneously in the same respect. For Hegel, the apparent contradiction is opposing points of view is not actual contradiction, but paradox, which is resolved by showing them to be complementary aspects of the whole.
Eg. the tale of the blind men and the elephant.
Always comes back to morons or complicit?
Franko's material competence.
“Morons or complicit”
That is only a choice within the dialectic method... it can’t be both... this is why MMT is failing ie “house divided against itself cannot stand...”.
Bill is basically correct...
I’ve made the didactic case here numerous times that they’re stupid and checkmate you guys like once a month... but you guys continue to remain within the dialectic and get nowhere...
So Bill imo is correct iow we should be attacking ANYBODY outside of our knowledge but he is going at it half assed ...
“the truth mentioned in both Mundaka Upanishad and John's Gospel is the whole. In Islam, one of the names of God is Truth ”
It’s NOT the “whole” the whole includes BOTH the truth AND the false...
Within the dialectic, you could have people saying “we’re out of money!” and others like us saying “no we’re not out of money...”.
Only one of these is the truth... can’t be both... so you take your position and go to war with the other side ...
Tom I’d have to draw you a Venn diagram from Set Theory...
Here Tom:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didactic_method
“Classic a didactic method (Greek: διδάσκειν didáskein, "to teach") is a teaching method that follows a consistent scientific approach or educational style to present information to students. The didactic method of instruction is often contrasted with dialectics and the Socratic method;”
In material systems ie science side of the academe, the didactic method is used... art degree side they use dialectic..
For material systems like our numismatic system or the economy in general you have to use didactic method to teach knowledge..
Iow you can’t have a bridge that stands and falls down AT THE SAME TIME.... as you would have under dialectic methods...
You can’t be both “out of money!” and “not be out of money”! AT THE SAME TIME...
Bill is pointing out that the Progressive movement is stuck in the dialectic where you have BOTH types of people where 1 cohort is retaining “we’re out of money!” as knowledge and a few MMT people who are retaining “were not out of money” as knowledge...
Can’t be both...
Mostly Art Degree people in the Progressive movement currently they are stuck in the dialectic..
Paul used the didactic method... often ran afoul of all the dialectic people in the synagogues (‘together-teach’) and they would run him out... just based on his methodology...
Dialectic method doesn’t work in science... sorry...
That is only a choice within the dialectic method... it can’t be both
Not borne out by facts. Liars are also sometimes (often?) morons, too.
“the truth mentioned in both Mundaka Upanishad and John's Gospel is the whole. In Islam, one of the names of God is Truth ”
It’s NOT the “whole” the whole includes BOTH the truth AND the false...
Within the dialectic, you could have people saying “we’re out of money!” and others like us saying “no we’re not out of money...”.
Only one of these is the truth... can’t be both... so you take your position and go to war with the other side ...
This is what drives historical dialectic. This aspect of the dialectic is going on right now. In fact, now the "we're out of money" crowd is still winning, but that wave seems to be cresting.
I am quite aware of set theory and Venn diagram.
Categorical thinking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didactic_method
“Classic a didactic method (Greek: διδάσκειν didáskein, "to teach") is a teaching method that follows a consistent scientific approach or educational style to present information to students. The didactic method of instruction is often contrasted with dialectics and the Socratic method;”
In material systems ie science side of the academe, the didactic method is used... art degree side they use dialectic..
For material systems like our numismatic system or the economy in general you have to use didactic method to teach knowledge..
Econ is a good example, Matt. It is supposed to be "science" but the models are flawed and the evidence sparse to non-existent.
No discussion allowed in class. Learn didactically and spew back the answers.
That's dogma based on categorical thinking.
There's a revolt among economics student going on now to switch to dialectics and consider other options.
The conventional economists are having none of it "because the methodological issues have been settled."
What Paul actually wrote and what meant it what he wrote is controversial in theology. There is an ongoing dialectic about it among radical, liberal, conservative and fundamentalist scholars.
“There's a revolt among economics student going on now to switch to dialectics and consider other options.“
Never going to work.... They should revolt over to the science side of the academe Econ is an Art Degree...
Tom, Econ is an Art Degree and you are saying it is a science degree... do you realize you are doing this?
Can’t be both...
Watching the exchange between Hickey and Franko is like watching a chess match between Garry Kasparov and Homer Simpson.
Econ in grad school is mostly math.
“What Paul actually wrote and what meant it what he wrote is controversial in theology.”
That is because theologians (Art Degree people) use the dialectic method... the dialectic includes such controversy as a feature...
Tom, when you are in Newtonian physics, the teachers use F=ma via a didactic method, if you take another position as a student you get the wrong answer and you cant pass the course...
Like the recent highly touted Econ person just came up with “donut Economics!” ... so now I can come up with “peanut butter & jelly Economics” and that would be ok in Economics...
Can’t be both...
I once had a book called the Art of Electronics. But why did they call it an art? Because there was an art to building good electronic circuits, but electronics is engineering based on hard science. Hmmm! Looks like it's both then.
Post a Comment