171–180 of 386 posts
Welcome to the world. A PhD guarantees nothing, tenured position barely exist anymore. Weird that economists did not realize this yet...
It's just that economics, as a field, is better at making charts and loudly complaining about things.
The way they used to keep them in power is by running a Nazi against them and making you choose, now people (rightfully) prefer the Nazis because at least they believe in something. So now they lawfare the Nazis so they can run unopposed (or NPC-opposed), or blackmail and bribe them into becoming centrists themselves. If we can put Al Qaeda in a suit and lap at his feet, we can certainly make Meloni into a Euro-warrior.
No need to convince anyone of anything, no need to have the support of a majority of the public, no restraints on infinite accumulation... what do you need some crypto-freshwater "why homelessness is actually the most accurate sign of prosperity" freak any more? Can't they just call Cass Sunstein? Did the numbers ever really matter? These guys specialized in telling you why the numbers were deceptive, and the real problem was any restraint on predators.
Academic economics is newly-pointless marketing of ideas popular (i.e. profitable) among elites (i.e. their bosses.) They are entirely unconcerned about the wealth of nations (nationalism!) or the wealth of citizens (communism!). When comfortable monopolies dominate, and the process of democracy is devalued ("dumb people shouldn't vote, we should follow the consensus!"), the market for marketing goes down.
It's funny how he pretends he thinks lying about inflation was decisive, as if the people affected by inflation get to hire economists, or wouldn't be more interested in becoming an economist to prove a bunch of liars wrong. Lying about inflation, or whatever else, is the job. The real message: "If you're a Democrat considering your rebrand, hire me as an advisor. I'll be your Ezra Klein, but with math!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not a great way to survive. Wait until you see how well setting it all on fire works.
At this point, we might be just fine. The academics won't be, but they were the ones telling everyone to wait on having kids in the first place. Demographic trickle down, biting the hand that feeds academia, is a big part of this story. At my college, birth control was as free as water. Teaching people to postpone marriage, children, for the sake of career, combined with record-high school debt... might be partly why…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a broad overgeneralization unless you believe zero fat in grad schools is available for trimming.
The sources of university funding and spending on administration has been broken for a long time. What does a graduate math program need? A building with some offices and classrooms, wifi, email service, maybe a couple of secretaries and janitors, office supplies, and salaries for students and researchers/instructors. What need does a math program have for any but the most basic administration? That's where all the m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It’s funny that instead of making points or adding data, you just repeat the same slogan and act like a victim. Many of us have tried to listen for a long time but we have never found any intellectual meat on the slogans. It’s boring.
There is data that some ridiculous percentage of academics are on the left, and drastically so for liberal arts departments.
“Everyone knows” that they filter against conservatives (maybe there isn’t hard data, but it’s pretty obvious to a lot of people, so I would say this is something that need to be disproven, not proven).
Liberals deny this, so what’s the point of discussing it. Let the dismantling continue until corrections happen I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was growing up the fear of WW3 was ever present and occupied the minds of intellectuals. One of the big questions was how can we prevent another Great Depression. The Great Depression was blamed for the rise of Fascism in Europe (the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler). There was genuine fear that Communism would also take root in the US during the Great Depression. People looked to economists f…
> The Great Depression was blamed for the rise of Fascism in Europe (the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler). Fascism in Europe was already well underway when the Great Depression started in '29. Weimar Germany collapsed due to the terms of Treaty of Versailles which essentially broke Germany's economy (Germany was essentially already in a depression well before the US). However, there was a very real…
This is completely wrong. Weimar Germany endured significant troubles in the early years due to political instability and reparations, but managed to overcome them with American loans and rewrite some terms for a decade or so of "Golden Years" before the Wall Street Crash, in which loans were withdrawn and the unemployment then rapidly rose.
So while the Treaty played a role, the Great Depression is the direct cause for Weimar Germany's eventual collapse. If they had 10 more years to recover, or if certain political moves were done differently, Fascism likely could have avoided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their acceptance rate is in the 25% range. Clearly the demand is there, so why is there a "fiscal situation"? In the mid 90's I went to a university that had cafeteria-style food, and dorms with no air conditioning. You don't need Waygu beef and massages in order to teach students. There shouldn't be any "fiscal situation" in higher education. What is a university anyway? It's some buildings and classrooms with profe…
Math PhDs are usually paid stipend and pay no tuition, so each additional student is a cost to the school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s more aggressive than that. It’s an intentional dismantling of higher education overall.
Higher education pissed off half of customers in their quest for moral purity, at the same time as birth rate decline post-2008 began hitting, while raising prices +93% on average since 2008. That's not a great way to survive.
...and they turn around and complain about liberals' "moral purity."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny that instead of making points or adding data, you just repeat the same slogan and act like a victim. Many of us have tried to listen for a long time but we have never found any intellectual meat on the slogans. It’s boring.
What’s there to discuss any more? There is data that some ridiculous percentage of academics are on the left, and drastically so for liberal arts departments. “Everyone knows” that they filter against conservatives (maybe there isn’t hard data, but it’s pretty obvious to a lot of people, so I would say this is something that need to be disproven, not proven). Liberals deny this, so what’s the point of discussing it.…