American ideology

[fpb]

Every time I found myself arguing politics with an otherwise illustrious writer on my f-list (which is richer in fine and great writers than I deserve), I have found my own testimony about my own past, life experience, country and background treated as fraudulent. It was not always the man himself who did it, but if he did not, someone else would. That was because it did not fit into the categories of the persons who argued against me. Rather than believe me when I spoke of the experiences that shaped me and taught me my views, they insisted that I would essentially lie about my own past in order to prove a point. This throws a nasty light on their own view of discussion, where evidently evidence is less important than ideological conformity. It is exactly like arguing with a committed Communist: if you disagree with her (or him), it is not because you have reason to, but because your class interests - or, even worse, the class interests of your masters - have warped your understanding. The last time a discussion started, I threw in a positive request that my testimony should NOT be questioned. Nonetheless, as punctual as a Swedish bus (and if Swedish buses are expected at a station at 16.08, they will arrive neither at 16.07 nor at 16.09), came the statement that perhaps I was not telling the actual truth about my own experience - worsened by the suggestion that I was doing it because I was pushing some sort of anti-American agenda. What can one do with people who, when challenged in their ideology, deny the facts? And who are convinced that only their opponents suffer from ideological blindness?

Never again. Whatever happens, I WILL NOT BE TRAPPED INTO DEBATING POLITICS OR ECONOMICS WITH AN AMERICAN FREE MARKETEER. I have learned my lesson.

Comments

[baduin.livejournal.com]

Consider it for a moment again. You will see that your - or anyone's - personal experience has exactly NO value in Internet discussion, thanks to the impersonal nature of Internet communication. Since both sides are usually pretty anonymous, personal experience can be neither corroborated nor rejected.

It is much better, as a debate tactic, NOT to use your personal experience as argument, and to try to find facts which can be indepently checked.

As to the free market theory and practical economy, I would suggest:

http://www.dcu.ie/dcubs/research_papers/no27.html
http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/global/diamond/
http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Advantage-Nations-Michael-Porter/dp/0684841479
http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Dp/pdf/dp_103.pdf

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I enter the internet with my own name - fpb, as everyone knows, are my initials. So, for that matter, do some of the people I have issues with. As for separating my own experience from the debate, I find the very notion ridiculous; from whose experience should I argue? As for economics, I am not at present in the mood for being lectured, and I suggest that at the age of 46, with several private business experiences and working as a freelance - that is, as a one-man enterprise - I may be supposed to know a thing or two about it. Please do not start from the position that only those who share your viewpoints are properly educated, and that the rest only need to be taught to join the rank of the enlightened. Some of us simply draw different conclusions. And having experienced free marketeering at first hand since 1979, I think I have seen enough to form my own views.

[baduin.livejournal.com]

Actually, I tried to show some arguments FOR government intervention. Unfortunately, it seems I failed to do so, despite eg following recension:

http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Advantage-Nations-Michael-Porter/dp/0684841479
"From Publishers Weekly
Harvard economist Porter suggests that it is no accident that Japan leads in exporting electronics and computer-controlled machinery, Italy in fabrics and home furnishings, and the U.S. in software, medical equipment and movies. In each of the 10 countries that he and his international research team investigated, clusters of firms gained a global competitive edge by capitalizing on innovation, raising productivity, and drawing on unique elements of their country's history and character. Porter, who served on Reagan's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, sees government's proper role as pusher and challenger, rather than as giver of subsidies to protect industries. Stressing renewed effort and competition as keys to gaining global advantage, he questions regulations that would limit competition and recommends enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws to end monopolistic mergers. This massive, impressive, salient tome is structured so that business executives, economists, policymakers and ordinary readers can turn to the sections most relevant to their needs. 50,000 first printing; first serial to Fortune.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc."


Anyway, here is another book in the similar vein:

http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-National-Interests-Robbins-Lectures/dp/0262072092

"Review
"The church of global free trade, which rules American politics with infallible pretensions, may have finally met its Martin Luther. An unlikely dissenter has come forward with a revised understanding of globalization that argues for thorough reformation. This man knows the global trading system from the inside because he is a respected veteran of multinational business. His ideas contain an explosive message: that what established authorities teach Americans about global trade is simply wrong--disastrously wrong for the United States."
-- William Greider, The Nation

Product Description
In this book Ralph Gomory and William Baumol adapt classical trade models to the modern world economy. Trade today is dominated by manufactured goods, rapidly moving technology, and huge firms that benefit from economies of scale. This is very different from the largely agricultural world in which the classical theories originated. Gomory and Baumol show that the new and significant conflicts resulting from international trade are inherent in modern economies.

Today improvement in one country's productive capabilities is often attainable only at the expense of another country's general welfare. The authors describe why and when this is so and why, in a modern free-trade environment, a country might have a vital stake in the competitive strength of its industries."


And remember, for yourself you are a person, you have life, experience etc. Unfortunately, for me you are only a few bits on the Internet - and the other way round, of course.

Also, personal experience as a freelancer is not necessarily applicable when directing national economy.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Personal experience is suitable as a citizen to assess national policy and those who make them, which is all I want and all that, in a free state, I have a right to.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I apologize for misunderstanding what you had to say. I am afraid I can be pretty stupid - and hurtful - when I am angry.