If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Isto foi feito já uma vez, aprende ler.
Yes Toadborg. Now, back to the debate. Are you going to engage properly? Or not?
No it hasn't
Name me an assumption, identify one single asumption that goes into economic science that relates the conclusions to capitalism directly.........
Name me one assumption...
Its not hard, if you are right you should be able to identify at least one element where the assumtpions of economic science relate to capitalism.
You haven't done that.........
Poor show.........
Very poor...........
Bored now. There's no point in talking to someone who only wants to trade insults. This isn't said to take the moral high ground, it's just a statement of fact.
Let me know if you want to debate, Toady.
Nice get out with the 'slanging match', I have been insulted by Blagsta far more than I have insulted him, oh dear.........
my uni goes on about mr bentham all the bloody time :crying:
Ah, I love shit stirring....
READ THE FUCKING THREAD!
Bollocks. You're deliberately being obtuse and you know it.
Aaaah, another person with the inability to follow a thread.
No - followed it. watched you get trounced. enjoyed it
Guess what, I just went through the whole thread......
and yes this confirmed that you have patently not answered the question.........
:chin:
you must be reading a different thread then 'cos its Toadborg who got trounced, with constant avoidance of points, wilful obfuscations, deliberate misreprentations and outright lies.
Whatever. It has been answered. Several times and not just by me. This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology might help you though.
Now, if, as I suspect, you are deliberately trying to end the thread in a slanging match because you know that you've lost the debate then fine, but goodbye. :wave:
The fact that you persist with the 'slanging match' idea is quite bizarre as well, I haven't insulted you for a couple of pages now....
Economic conclusions are reached form models, these models are built on assumptions.
You have cliamed that these assumptions implicitly accept the capitalist system. I contend they do not and you have done nothing to show that I am wrong......
No, what it highlights is that you don't actually understand the answer.
Being deliberatly obtuse is a good way to provoke a slanging match ime.
You seem to keep changing your opinion on this.
Yes.
Yes I have. What do you actually think economics is? From your posts, you seem to think that is an objective reality, divorced from actual people and their relationships.
It seems we may have to agree to disagree, oh well.........
No, its not a bizarre question at all. As I have said, our economic system determines our social relationships to a large degree. Now if you take those social relationships as "natural", don't question them and base your analysis on those assumptions you will arrive at a different conclusion than if you take a different starting point. See? Treating "the economy" as "an engine" (like someone mentioned earlier) treats it as an object, divorced from social relationships, divorced from people and the reality of their lives. Its what Marxist philosophers mean by reification - treating the human players and their relationships as objects, divorced from any subjectivity and roots in the social.
Yes, probably. That link on ideology is worth a look though, because what I am doing is attempting to get you to question your own ideology which you don't even seem to be aware that you have.
What assumptions regarding existing social relations do you think that economics makes?