I know what I called it. I’m telling you, this woman was an ignoramus. When she asked the class to give examples of monopolies, her example was Wal-Mart. Could it be that her only micro classes were semester-long anti-market rants by Marxists? Or maybe she got through college by doing her professors. She was fairly hot.
Oh boy…
I got to class a few minutes early today with some other guy in my class. We sat down, the prof asked us how we were doing, blah-blah-blah.
Then he pulls out Threshold and asks us what we think of it. I don’t recall what the other guy said, but its not important. He asks me and I said, “It’s very progressive” and did the finger-quote gesture around the word progressive. I probably shouldn’t have done that, or what I said next.
He says “Well, it is progressive. The author is a progressive.” He said some other stuff as well, mostly pertaining to the book, but I don’t remember any of it. Then he asks, “my name, so where are you? Where do you stand?” I replied “Politically?” He answered affirmatively. I said “Libertarian.” Bad idea.
I ended up sitting through ~50 minutes of pure grilling. He started off with “Ah, libertarian. Hartmann has a few things to say about libertarians in this book.” I said “I know, I read it.”
It was alright at first. I was wrong. He started going on this rant lasting essentially the entire class consisting of vague and subtle jabs at libertarianism. The most prevalent statement he made was about one of the “erroneous assumptions” behind libertarianism. He began talking about a “robust, Daniel Boone type of man that doesn’t need anyone to survive.” I was rather confused at this claim because I have never heard of any libertarian assuming that we are all self-sufficient. Coincidentally, I was reading the chapter on Law, Police, and Courts in For a New Liberty last night, and Rothbard mentions how libertarians make no claims for a new “Libertarian Man,” which is more of a Marxist claim.
He kept naming hot-button topics such as “Corporate reform,” as in that legislation which was repealed that now allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates, as if such events are products of the free market.
He gave another example of how “great” it is in Denmark, where, although they pay 50% in taxes, they get full healthcare and schooling, blah-blah-blah.
It was quite annoying. I essentially just sat there and took it because 1) I’m not a very good speaker at the moment, 2) I couldn’t really think of any responses in the heat of the moment, and 3) I’d rather address his claims in essays.
He passed around the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman as well, telling me to read it. The prof. also took most of the class explaining “dogmatism” and how subscribing to ALL of one ideology makes one blind, and he kept looking at me and blah blah blah.
Grr, frustrations!
^Sometimes it’s not a bad thing to be honest. I remember having this very passionate progressive philosophy teacher. He figured out I was an anarchist very quickly. While he would give quick jabs, my commentary and willingness to talk pretty much made me his favorite student in the class. He was very friendly with me outside the classroom. I got good grades in the class too.
So don’t fear honesty, I guess just don’t be arrogant like your professor might be.
It’s not being arrogant I have to worry about. I would just rather not have to sit through his constant demagoguery and jabs at what he calls “free market capitalism.” As I also said, I’m not good at articulating arguments through speaking. I never have been, really.
What exactly is the class, is it simply writing?, or did you sign up for political discourse?
@nirgrahamUK: It is a Writing class, pure and simple. Any other professor would teach students how to write effectively, persuasively, and logically, but my professor seems to be using it as a stage for spreading “revolutionary” ideas, as he calls them, with writing on the side.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh man. All I have to say Blueline is, good luck with that, and you be sure and let us know how it all works out for you.
Actually, I would have responded “apolitical”, because I do see pure liberalism as an apolitical stand. It would have been an honest answer. I mean, politics is about “reconciliation of interests”, and I don’t think any pure liberal would ever think that is possible, knowing that people are always different, and no amount of coercion can change that.
Would you have any chance of breaking into any given rant at an early stage and declaring 'that’s an interesting viewpoint, but as regards the issue of selecting the appropriate tense…" and try to get him back on track ?
@Prateek: I’ll need all the luck I can get if I wish to keep my brain intact. It’s not even his progressivism that annoys it, its the fact that he constantly talks about it like its gospel. And the funny thing is that he’ll warn us about labeling ourselves with “-isms” (he started ranting about that after I said I was libertarian), then he’ll go and call himself a progressive! He even called himself a libertarian because “Hey, I like capitalism. My wife and I run a business, but…goes on some anti-corporatist tirade that has nothing to do with free market capitalism.”
@nirgraham: Forgive me, but I’m a bit confused as to what you said. Mostly the “as regards the issue…” part.
I suggest directing everyones attention to the ‘real’ topic at hand rather than the ‘fake’ one offered.
Just like what teachers normally would do! “That’s interesting Johnny, but back to the algebra on the board…”
Ah, I see. The only problem I see with that is that he has a tendency to keep going off topic, talking about corporatism and how the govt is “in bed” with corporations and how that’s a failure of the market. I would probably become so frustrated lol.
I’m fairly close to finishing For a New Liberty, and although I was going to read Economics for Real People next, I may have to real Meltdown so I can combat his anti-free market “this is what caused the recession!” drivel.
I should note that he has a proverbial hard-on for democracy. God help me if I ever brought it up in an essay!
I may have to real Meltdown so I can combat his anti-free market “this is what caused the recession!” drivel.
A shorter read : http://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-responsible.html
When did Milton Friedman say that?
@Brian: That’s what I want to know! He never cited his source.
In the context “libertarian” was too much of a “meh” answer. What you should had done was say something that would have thrown him off balance.
@Marko: I probably should have said voluntaryist or something so he couldn’t throw assumptions at me (which is odd, because for part of class he was saying "when you assume, you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”). I’m not sure he’s encountered the term “voluntaryist” before.
I think he might be referring to Miltion Friedman using the term market failure.
So I turned in three essays on various questions assigned to me pertaining to Hartmann’s Threshold. The prof gave me an A+, showing he is not academically hostile to opposing views. But he did have some criticism on what I wrote. For one, when he passed back my essay, he said I “blatantly ignored what Hartmann was saying in some areas,” which is fine, because I probably did (my essays were very rant-y).
Here are some of his criticisms. These only include the ones I could decipher because his chicken-scratch handwriting is illegible.
So you can follow the format: My statement in the essay(s) will be given, then his comment on the statement will be below that, etc.
Him: "A+. Very excellent. A really critical analysis. I feel you either misread/[confused part of Hartmann’s point…but I could be wrong. You gave me a lot to think about.] – Parts in brackets may not be what he wrote, only what I could decipher.
Me in the essay: “However, he childishly and fallacious attacks the idea of a free market, which is prevalent throughout the book. The free market does not merely ‘operate under its own divine rules.’ What are these divine rules? He does not explain…”
Him: “No invisible hand is what he is referring to.” – Is the whole invisible hand metaphor still around? I thought that was a Adam Smith-esque idea.
Me: “Hartmann is placing the blame on the victim, not the murderer.”
Him: “I don’t think so.”
Me: “It is our economic system that is causing out unsustainability…”
Him: “We’ll, he agrees with you.”
Me: “…At face value, Hartmann would probably agree with that statement. However I do not believe it is the free market that is causing us to become unsustainable on this planet, but rather the lack of one.”
Him: “…[illegible]…and how do we fix it…[illegible]…the .0001 percent have all the power…”
Me: “At the start of the chapter, Hartmann speaks of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan…”
Him: “Who admits to the FLAWS of [illegible].” – Both Hartmann, his followers, and my professor seem to think Greenspan is a free-marketeer.
That’s really all I could read of his comments. I should also note that he passed around A People’s History of the American Empire by Howard Zinn and told us it would “blow our minds.” He also recommended Blowback to me as I talked about the U.S.'s foreign policy in one of the essays.
^Maybe he’s intimidated that you may be more “progressive” then he is.
Either way, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and People’s History are excellent reads