I've been listening to some interviews with a Marxist economist, Richard Wolff.
In an interview titled the Final Caste Against Donald Trump I just heard him say that taxing the rich stimulateds the economy but leaves the government without the revenuwe to pay its obligations. This seems to me to be a simple logical error because the fact is that when the rich are taxed less it not only stimulates the economyu it grows the tax revenue, because there are more workers paying taxes and more workers earning more money so mpaying highter taxes. It's fa fact that the tax revenue is hight. In the reagan era when he cut taxes on the ricdh the tax revenue collected by the IRS was double what it had been before. Shouldn't Wolff be aware of this? Why isn't he?
He goes from there to how we are in debt to China, which I've also heard we are, to a frightening degree. Seems we agree on that, or he agrees with the conservatives on that, but he has the wrong idea bout why, perhaps because he's a leftist who never faces the fact that it's the left that is always spending so much money it's the cause of the debt in the first place.
Not thta the republicans don't obverspend as well, but at least they make some effort to pay it down, which is trump's plan again when he gets into office. this second time.
I suppose I'm sounding a lot more sure of myself rthan I have any right to. I'm just repeating what I've een hearing from my own conservative sources. I'm aware I know very little about all of this. But I'm pretty sure I'm able to jusdge that this Marxist is living in some kind of seconomic lalaland as far as understanding the actual facts goes. He talks in sweeping generalitgies and it's hard to know what exactly he's tlalkingabout. I'll keep listening for a while though.
Years ago I made some effort to read Marxsx and amarxist wrigints. I ended up with the impression that they never come down to earth, that it's all heady theorizing way above the level of actual nitty gritty reality.
And this guy Wolff sounds the same.
Come to think of it, I have a similar impression of the theory of evolution. We aren't allowed to say it's just theory because theory is a lot more definite in science than in casual converstaion, but the fact is that Darwinism IS just theory, it's all a lot of ideas floating in the ether that dn't connect with reality. That's how they neglected tp mpte tjat tjat
s jpw tjeu meg;ected tp mpte tjat tje sedo,emtaru strata om tjeor so,[;e [jusoca; rea;otu are evodemce tjat tjere were mp to,e [erdops pf ,o;;opms pf uears/ Tjat
s a;sp jpw tjeu fao;ed tp mpte tjat tje [rpcesses pf evp;itopm. ,eamomg varoatopm. reqiore tje ;pss pf gemetoc doversotu wjocj os tje p[[psote pf wjat p[ememded evp;itopm reqiores/ tjese twp pbservatopms are ,u ,aom argi,etms agaomst evp;itopm/
Post in progress
h
Now I've got myself thoroughly bemused, pondering how there is so much sheer mental conjuring going on in the name of reality. Certainly in Marxism and I've argued also in Darwinism. I never read Kant's Critiue of Pure Reason but the title just came to my mind, like maybe he was talking about something similar. Pure Reason is just mental conjurings without ever coming down to earth, without anything truly empirical entering into the supposed explanation of reality in a particularlyparticular field of thought. Whatever you think that seems to make sense is good enough. Maybe this explains how it is that supposedly intelligent people can deny the biollogical facts of sex in favor of someone's felt identity as the opposite sex which is such a big disaster theee days. For some reason Jordan Peterson's conjuurings over the bible also come to mind. It's very annoying that he so blithely just interprets scripture to suit his own prconceptions without caring one bit what two thousand years of Christian theology says about it. He just plays with his own ideas and finds scripture fitting in with this or that idea of his. His ideas in themselve may be interesting, but the claim that scripture has anything to do with them is utterly ridiculous and yes, blasphemous.
ttps://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=richard+wolff+case+ag
