A discussion on the rules.

nesf wrote: »

Ignore who is right or wrong with regard to economic theory for the moment, since this really isn't the issue. Speaking as a user (I recently stepped down as a mod), the problem I see isn't really MMT or your advocation of it but your bringing it in everywhere. With respect to the water metering thread bring in MMT is about as relevant as me making a point about how we should do metering if the country wasn't in a recession. MMT is a very, very long way from being a reality in this country, it actually is impossible right now with our membership of the Eurozone, so it's about as relevant to any discussion of real life economic issues as discussing how things would work in a anarchist libertarian state or Stalinist Communist State, neither of which are going to happen in the medium term here.

That's the core issue. It isn't necessarily that MMT is right or wrong just that it's really not relevant in half the threads you bring it up in anymore than someone saying what a People Before Profit Majority Government would do either. Prefacing your argument with "Assuming we can print the money we need" is the equivalent to "Assuming they don't need to get relected next term the current Government could do the following."


However, in a thread about what we should do with regards to economic system, you very much should be in there arguing with the libertarians and Marxists about things.

It is economics, it is everywhere in politics, applicable to almost all of it. There is no one valid school of economics - mainstream economics, which backs most discussion, is bunk (provably so - trivially).

Your example of it not being relevant to the water charges thread: We wouldn't be in a recession, as it is exactly that which my policies solve entirely.

If you are discussing funding of anything in government, my views are applicable to it - fundamentally applicable, because you don't just fund things with taxes and debt, but with money creation as well.
If people disagree with that, fine. By asserting I should not post that, people try to give primacy to one economic theory over another though, which is wrong.


It is also completely relevant to us within the Eurozone: There should be a much louder public discussion on the alternatives available to the EU, that they are not taking, and alternatives that we can take within (and outside of) the EU.
I don't understand the idea of ruling out discussion of EU politics, just by saying they are intractable - that's like saying we shouldn't discuss Irish politics, because it's intractable (which is equally false). Doesn't make the EU sound very democratic.

Saying we shouldn't discuss something because the EU won't do it, is like saying "we shouldn't discuss legalizing cannabis, because government will never do that, in the current political climate".
The governance of the EU is as applicable to any political topic, as that of the Irish government.


Again, you can't really limit theory to separate threads, because you have to base political discussion (which is inextricable from economics) on one agreed/settled set of economics, which we just don't have.

Does this mean we can get a ban on "true" libertarianism and all the other political/economic systems that have never been applied in the real world and only have the most minority of support in this country in the non political theory forums too

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because you are the centre of all the derailed threads, and generally they have been derailed because you have made a post bringing in MMT, and others are then responding to that. From their perspective you are as wrong as they are from yours, which means that when they go into a water charges thread expecting to discuss water charges in the setting of current reality - mainstream economic theory, austerity, the ECB not printing money, etc - they find a post from you telling everyone how all of this is totally unnecessary if only everyone followed MMT.

That makes every thread you enter a discussion of MMT. To you, that's obviously right, but no matter how convinced you are personally of the truth of MMT, the fact of the matter is that MMT is not going to be adopted within the foreseeable future by our government or the eurozone more general, and changing over to it would require a fundamental change in the way we operate economies - which makes such discussions basically irrelevant theoretical abstractions and whataboutery. It's as useful as a communist telling everyone that water charges would be unnecessary under a planned economy.

Yes, I appreciate you reject that, but your view is, at this stage, so evangelical as to be fanatical. Since you're apparently unable to help yourself, my present plan is to ban you permanently from all politics forums and sub-forums bar the Political Theory forum, starting from tomorrow or later today. That ban will be open to reversal if it seems you genuinely appreciate the problems you're causing and why - currently, I don't see that you appreciate it at all, but on the contrary, you see yourself as the injured party. I'm afraid you're not the injured party, you're the problem, and banning you from all 'practical' political discussions looks like the only available solution, because other people would like to be able to discuss politics without having to discuss MMT.

moderately,
Scofflaw

To settle that, you end up giving an economic theory primacy on the forum. Mainstream economics is debunked, what do you use as the standard to judge MMT or any other theory?
People seem to also be under the impression you can separate economics (and its theory) from politics and discussion of politics: You can't, especially when the current theory used to guide politics is plain wrong, making huge amounts of politics debatable based on theory (which to avoid, you have to give one theory primacy on the forum - indirectly the effect of what you are doing).

If no theory is to have primacy, bringing a policy based on MMT into the discussion is valid, and criticizing other policies using arguments (sometimes but often not even based on MMT), is valid.


You are saying that it is not politically practical, therefore it should not be discussed - that is like my example above, that discussing legalizing cannabis is not politically practical, therefore it should not be discussed - that is not a good grounds for (effectively, through chilling effect) banning a specific economic theory from discussion.

It is basically saying, that because it is not the status quo, and the status quo is hard to change, it should not be discussed - that's self-reinforcing really, as it's never going to happen if it's never discussed anywhere.


You are accusing me of being evangelical/fanatical, when you can not show any other economic theory to be more valid than my own, when it is incredibly easy to find factual faults in most (mainstream economics most of all) - I am not evangelizing or being fanatical about my views, any more than any other person using mainstream economic arguments to back their views - most of my large quantity of posts is defending my views from other (often very sneery/dismissive) posters.


Other posters that respond to me, and their own quality of argument, is getting completely ignored here, and the entire issue lumped on me.

I can come to appreciate the problems being caused (I disagree with focusing solely on me rather than also the other posters responding to me though), if the problems I am pointing out can be clarified, but I just don't feel I am getting a balanced hearing here, which is making it very hard to work past the problems I am raising above, with your arguments against me, that just aren't getting addressed at all.
I am not arguing for the sake of it either, they are genuine problems I do see here, and which put a heavy imbalance on the reaction to me, and effectively create a chilling effect over the entire topic.

I may not be able to post on this topic much more today, so when I am banned, it would be good to still be able to post on this thread - I've got a feeling a lot of this stuff is just going to be left unaddressed otherwise.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. Kyuss, now you're trying to turn this thread into some kind of swan song defence of MMT.

moderately,
Scofflaw

There are many points in my post to you, which have nothing to do with MMT (and even those of which, are largely not a defense of MMT) - why do you represent my posts that way, as well as not replying to anything or even quoting where I do that?
Pretty much every thing put on me, is never backed up with reference to my actual posts or anything - it seems only a pretense at giving me a fair hearing, so that's not really being straight with me at all.


To try and bring this down to one central point (missing all the other important points needed to flesh out the argument mind):
All political discussion is inextricably intertwined with economics, and all of economic discussion is intertwined with economic theory - this makes parts of most political discussion based on one economic theory or other:
This makes discussion of theory inseparable from discussion of politics - when you start shutting down discussion of policies advocated by one school, you start giving primacy to other theories.

When those other theories are easily shown to be factually false, what do you do, for deciding when discussion of one is 'too much', versus discussion of another? Right now, variations of neoclassical economics dominate the forum - why has that got primacy, without being open to challenge?


The only other argument beyond this, is that the policies I advocate are not practical in the short/medium-term:
There is nothing to back this argument, as I explained in reply to nesf. Monetary reform is a tiny change, but with very big implications.

At what stage are we going to classify discussion of the now ended provisional campaign as "history" and remove it to a suitable forum?

rodento wrote: »

Can a sub section be created for northern politics, the topic has completely hijacked the main section over the last year

You know, I have this brilliant strategy for not getting annoyed by threads I've no interest in; I'll share it with you. I simply don't click on them.