If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Re: religious faith required for neo-liberal views
I wasn't "trying" anything - merely wanting to understand what this point of view is - seeing microeconomic analysis (what you call market idolatry) as a religion. Throwing in terms like 'idolatry' doesn't make it so. Saying "no proof" doesn't make it so.
Even casting it as false economics is different than casting it as religion. Casting it as religion is akin to an attack when you don't have actual evidence to make your claim.
I'm not supporting right wing or left wing; not supporting market economies or non-market economies here (although I prefer my economics from economists, not geographers). But one should spend time studying microeconomics before actually condemning it to religious status.
I wasn't "trying" anything - merely wanting to understand what this point of view is - seeing microeconomic analysis (what you call market idolatry) as a religion. Throwing in terms like 'idolatry' doesn't make it so. Saying "no proof" doesn't make it so.
It's amusing then, that you refer to "regimes (that) practice this alleged "neo-liberalism" " with the scare quotes. Why "alleged" and why the scare quotes if you are "trying to understand" what it is? Wouldn't you make up your mind after you've understood things rather than before you have?
Like I said, nice try. Neo-liberalism is at least as old as the military and torture regime of Augusto Pinochet in Chile that brought in Chicago School economic fundamentalists to establish the "freedom for prices" while Chileans languished in jails or were tortured in football stadiums. Economist Michel Chudovssky wrote a great essay about the horrors of that regime, and the Economists that prostituted themselves, in a book of his well worth reading.
Even casting it as false economics is different than casting it as religion. Casting it as religion is akin to an attack when you don't have actual evidence to make your claim.
I'm not supporting right wing or left wing; not supporting market economies or non-market economies here (although I prefer my economics from economists, not geographers). But one should spend time studying microeconomics before actually condemning it to religious status.
I've just given you a quote from the head of major business school in the US, who was involved with the imposition of neo-liberal ideas in public utilities, and you are looking the other way. Try to look at the evidence even if you don't like it.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
You're very hard for me to follow! But I will try to respond to your questions where I can.
1) You refer to very diverse governments and call them all "neo-liberal" governments. They seem very different to me - even Harper vs. Obama - yet you have given them one label.
2) Quotes aren't for scaring. I use them either to quote - or to point out the label isn't one I'd use without obvious reason. I don't see you've defined "neo-liberalism" or distinguished it from liberalism for that matter.
3) I'm trying to understand you before I can either agree or disagree with you. I owe anyone that.
4) I don't understand your Chile point or see its relevance to this discussion.
5) Romero - googling him he is a professor of business administration at the University of Oregon - is this your major business school? He has served under Republican Pete Wilson in California as the state's Chief Economist. I recall Pete Wilson a bit; but never had heard of this Romero person and the University of Oregon isn't on my radar.
6) Microeconomic is a discipline. It makes no religious assumptions. You need to have a decent amount of calculus to actually take an advanced course in it. It's been a very long time for me, but I'm pretty sure there was absolutely no religious indoctrination on having to believe this or that about anything in terms of the type of government best for ruling.
7) I'm just guessing you're talking about a conservative movement, particularly found in the US where non-economists preached a market economy as moral imperative, rather than an outcome of sound economic analysis. Is this what you're trying to describe? If so, let me just say few, if any serious economists - even strong supporters of market economies - would take this kind of stuff seriously. This doesn't show, though, anything wrong with free market economics - it shows only that some people are strange. Is this what you're getting at, though? What has this to do with the governments you listed? Obama doesn't buy into such nonsense; nor Harper.
8) Last thought: privatization has worked well sometimes; sometimes not. It depends on how it's managed. Air Canada is better, surely as a private company than as a government entity?
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
Ok, that's better. Let me see if I can reply.
1. Shared premises. What we see in Canada, for instance, is that all of the major parties in Parliament (Conservative, NDP, and Liberal) share the same kool-aid; accumulation by dispossession in general, by means of privatization or transferring property from public ownership to private ownership (literally robbing the public so that private interests may feast); by financialization and such techniques as asset stripping, ponzi schemes, asset destruction through inflation, etc.; by the management and manipulation of crises (the horrific destruction of the public school system in New Orleans in the aftermath of the terrible hurricane there was a well-documented example in which the Machiavellian idea of inflicting terrible injuries all at once on the public, so ordinary people would be overwhelmed and unable to fight back, etc. ); and by the redistribution of wealth such as a tax system that profits returns on investment rather than income and wages, and benefits the wealthy and the super-rich while impoverishment accelerates for the rest of the population ...
4. Chile. This was the "experiment" in neo-liberalism through the barrel of a gun in South America. The original 9-11.
Neo-liberalism is war by the rich on the poor, "class war" from above, and in this regard all the regimes carry this policy out, many with gloating enthusiasm. It has been carried out for several decades now, with great success; mass impoverishment alongside fabulous riches for the 1%, and all the benefits of cruel austerity.
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
1. There has been a history of referring to a group of conservatives primarily in the United States as "neocons." As far as I can see you're using the term "neo-liberals" in exactly the same way. You mean it to be derogatory; but it amounts to a bunch of loose, unsubstantiated accusations that have nothing to do with each other.
2. I don't believe you think that Ponzi schemes are a result of privatization. I don't believe you think and major party in Canada or the US support Ponzi schemes.
3. A war on inflation has been fought, pretty successfully, in North America now for several decades. I remember the days of higher inflation here and surely uncontrolled inflation is a bad thing. Not at all sure what you're trying to say about inflation.
4. Air Canada as a crown corporation. It was poorly run. It was particularly difficult for private airlines to start up in Canada, being unable to compete with an entity with nearly unlimited funds. The result was a near monopoly and consumers being forced to pay very high prices. Do you want it to be publically owned again? I'm simply not following you.
5. Don't know anything about public schools in New Orleans. Can't comment.
6. I've read Machiavelli. I don't recall reading those claims you've made about him. I should also stress there is a context for what he is writing about and to whom he is writing for.
7. Chile was a 9-11? Hard to believe I don't know about this. Some interesting wine is coming from Chile these days. It's a big growth industry there.
8. Our tax system certain redistributes wealth. Who would deny this? The rich are at higher tax rates. Capital gains may well be taxed at a lower rate than interest income - but this depends on what personal tax rate you are at. By and large in Canada, our taxes pay for government through redistribution of wealth. The wealthier people pay at higher tax rates; the wealthier provinces see net transfers out to poorer ones. You're against this? I'm still not following you.
9. I will read the excerpt you've linked to. I'd suggest, in return, you spend some guided time studying serious Microeconomic analysis, without casting judgment until you've achieved a strong understanding. Arguments are not won through innuendo or asides. Points aren't made by throwing vague terms around and hoping something sticks. Whether Marxist or capitalist - careful, reasoned discussion can get you progress. If you wish to argue against a position, you must first make that position as strong as it can be, before you take it apart.
It's obvious to me that you're not treating the term with the seriousness that it deserves and are being disingenuous about your understanding of it.
I understand and respect that you feel that way and I'm sorry you feel that way. But there is no greater respect than in the demand for clarity. Without clarity, we can not achieve understanding, truth, or even wisdom. Throughout this thread you've continued to throw out terms, and bunched many unrelated ideas into single paragraphs. This makes it a challenge to engage in conversation.
4. Air Canada as a crown corporation. It was poorly run. It was particularly difficult for private airlines to start up in Canada, being unable to compete with an entity with nearly unlimited funds. The result was a near monopoly and consumers being forced to pay very high prices. Do you want it to be publically owned again? I'm simply not following you.
The government ties aren't completely cut. They got what amounted to a bailout last year. Had to do with their pension plan deficit. The government cut them a huge break.
I bought stock in that company for between around a buck and a half down to around 90 cents. I thought it was going to go under a couple of times. Then along came that agreement. However, it's doing quite nicely although I've trimmed at lower prices. I don't buy airline stocks. I rent them.
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
One bit of clarity then: I know what neo-cons are and I'm not conflating them with the practices and ideology of neo-liberalism.
Washington is currently awash with the neo-cons when it comes to influence on US foreign policy; one commentator remarked that their views can be summarized as follows, "What we cannot own, we will destroy." We have seen the destruction of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now efforts to destroy Ukraine. Failed states as the result of US policy are everywhere. This is an aggressive, war-like foreign policy which is different from the economic gospel of market idolatry characteristic of neo-liberalism.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Friday, 4th July, 2014, 11:51 AM.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
The government ties are completely cut. What you call a bailout isn't a bailout - it's an extension of terms for the underfunding of their pension issue. It basically gives them more time to eliminate this underfunding. Please recall this was something that developed out of the last bankruptcy protection proceedings.
That the government no longer owns AC doesn't mean they might not have to bail it out. Airlines around the world have faced extraordinary challenges and many have used bankruptcy protection to emerge as stronger companies.
Warren Buffet urges people to not invest in airlines........ but hoping you've done well.
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
Your one commentator, like some of your other commentators, likes painting vast pictures which leave out much reality and much detail. Again, clarity doesn't come with vast statements conflating a dozen of separate issues with very little in common. Clarity is in the details - for everything. Always.
You're upset about the "destruction" of Yugoslavia? Seriously? And you blame this on the US? Libya? Syria? Ukraine?
I'll give you Iraq - not that I don't think Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Afghanistan? It was a failed state well before US involvement - recall it as a failed stated with Soviet involvement actually.
Re: Romero: I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith.
The government did not likely want to see the airline in bankruptcy again. Sooner or later they would end up having to take it back in if people wouldn't throw money at the company.
You can also take the postal service. The decision to discontinue home mail delivery will likely cost the government ridings even though they try to distance themselves from that. This government has done the worst job with the postal system since confederation. If they can afford F-35's they can afford to deliver the mail. Failing a retraction of that policy I will switch and vote Liberal, as distasteful as I find that. I'm not the only one who feels that way either.
Arguments are not won through innuendo or asides. Points aren't made by throwing vague terms around and hoping something sticks. Whether Marxist or capitalist - careful, reasoned discussion can get you progress. If you wish to argue against a position, you must first make that position as strong as it can be, before you take it apart.
I told you once and I'll tell you again: that's not how it is on ChessTalk. And it will never be that way on ChessTalk.
You will fail miserably to make any debate here take such a logical path. The thin veneer of civilization, almost inconsequential as it is outside of ChessTalk, doesn't even exist here. The MODERATOR is the worst offender, doesn't that tell you anything? Never in a million years would you have him studying anything such as microeconomic analysis without casting judgement. The very idea is preposterous here.
What exactly are you trying to achieve by discoursing with this person? Are you trying to get your son to see how chessplayers 'reason', and turn him off the game? In that you might be successful.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
1. There has been a history of referring to a group of conservatives primarily in the United States as "neocons." As far as I can see you're using the term "neo-liberals" in exactly the same way. You mean it to be derogatory; but it amounts to a bunch of loose, unsubstantiated accusations that have nothing to do with each other.
.
you're new here, or at least your "join date" suggests so, but there was a thread a few years ago with the poster denigrating neo-cons. Just as Nigel refers to certain regimes and people as "neo-liberals" and hence "bad", the poster in that case referred to many of the same people Nigel calls "neo-liberal" as "neo-cons" (but the "bad" part was the same :-) ).
Ultimately the poster retreated when he was unable to provide a consistent definition of "neo-con".
I thought you might enjoy the thread as counter point but alas my search capabilities are unable to unearth it.
Tweet
Comment