I had to sit through an entire semester of garbage in complete silence in order to get the grade I desired. I noticed early on that she had no patience for “primitive bourgeois positions,” so I gave way. This is the letter I want to send her, tell me what you think (I’m trying to remain as civil as possible for obvious reasons):
Intellectual’s see themselves as the creators of truth–the most valuable commodity. When they see the average businessman earning a much higher income, for doing something as “trivial” as producing steel, glass, or whatever, they blame the “evil” capitalistic system. What they fail to understand is that the ventures of the businessmen are more profitable because they service the needs of the majority, while intellectual’s produce something desired only by the very few. Thus, when the intellectual’s criticize capitalism, they’re really criticizing the majority–the very group they wish to “liberate.”
Testicles, like the price mechanism, serve a very important and specific function. Castrating a man renders him useless, and manipulating the price mechanism renders it useless.
The moral hazard is created by the government. I don’t blame Wall Street for the cirses at all, and anyone who does is making an unnecessary concession. You can make the argument that they’re fueling the government and legitimizing its destructive policies, but can you really blame them? Their jobs depend on government assistance.
I think the individual rationally seeks out information which can better his/her situation therefore they seek out the advice/teachings of intellectuals. This means that the intellectual does not necessarily cater to the few.
Why personify prices? And why must it be male?
It works both ways. It is not as if bailouts are some new craze.
I don’t think the average person is interested in Rortian Neo-Pragmatism, or in dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models, nor should they be. Intellectual’s always cater to the few; you don’t see 100 million people walking around reading articles or books about quantum mechanics, analytical metaphysics, or whatever.
I mean, I don’t have to. I just wanted to demonstrate my point, namely that the price mechanism is rendered useless.
i like the intent but i would expand on your first paragraph and make that the focus of the letter.
basically tell the woman that what she is getting paid reflects how much the market values her service and suggest that it probably wouldn’t be as much if it wasn’t subsidized by the government. i would save this as the punch line though and use the bulk of the letter just explaining how the market determines prices.
Are there not intellectuals in history? politics? dare I say economics?
Well remember you are talking to a sociologist which is like a psychologist who likes to generalize people. Plus she is female so projecting prices as an impotent man…yea
I think in economics people act without fully knowing. History is a bit harder. Politics yes.
Best to wait a day and reread what you wrote. I do it all the time. I type out something I think is great then go back and think ‘What the hell is that?’
You’re apologizing for rich people. I hate rich people. In a capitalist system, they’re great because if they really are that rich its because they’ve made everyone else even richer. But in the status quo its just a bunch of government granted monopolies.
You should pick out one of the major themes of the course and give a libertarian perspective on it. Include somewhere in your letter a critique of governmental incentive structures. She’s probably under the impression that there can be good government. Smash that myth.
This is very strange forum behavior to me. I do not see any reference to castrated or Wall Street or thermometer in Esuric’s letter. All I saw in the original post was:
And stop assigning pieces of economic theory to body parts [:P] Next we will be talking about reverse inequality of value between the reproduction organs. An exchange must take place!