Neoclassical Sheep Walk

The mistake that Lloyd and and every other Austrian/Chicago School economist make is the assumption that in a purely free market there will be some sort of equilibrium. There is no such equilibrium. Full employment doesn't exist. There is no room for environmental value in the free market. The inertia of capitalism moves towards exploitation because thats all it knows. The less regulation, the easier the exploitation.

And the idea that gov't regulations caused the financial crisis is the most ridiculous right-wing talking point of all. Apparently you have forgot the deregulation of the Reagan years as well as the deregulation of the clinton years.

funny...if you substitute anthropogenic global warming theory for neoclassical ecnomics.....you just might have something there....

We are all to be blamed. Saying that economists are the sole reason our system has failed is childish and similar to finger pointing. Everybody spent money and accrued debt when there was no sustainable cashflow to support such actions in the longterm. We allowed financial innovations to spread our risk over multiple parties, that led to grossly overvalued assets and the eventual "crash" or contemporary crisis of the system.
The economics professors are not professing manners to profiteer of the system but only exist to elucidate on the actions that might be occurring. The majority of the school of economics acknowledges a lack of knowledge due to the social aspect of this science. We, as I am an economics, history, and mathematics student, only attempt to build models that shed light on some aspect of the system. We understand our limitations and only ask people to bear mind these models attempt to predict the future.
Posting your treatise on a professors door is offensive and lacks any form of academic integrity. If your qualms are so severe then make your voices heard via channels of legitimate consequence. Open public debate or petition your government representatives for changes to the system you seem to have such a problem with.
I have sad news by the way for the lot of you, this market system is here to stay. Regulation is required to fix many obvious and unfortunately many more not so obvious flaws. These are far from fatal however.

Ah, it's interesting to find others who like Austrian Economics. From what I've read, it seems you have some similar views to me, but what I would like to point out is the purpose of Adbusters.

To me, Adbusters is a gem in critiquing what other publications overlook in a very provoking and interesting way. While it may not be an academic journal, I think it does an excellent job at appealing to a target group of individuals with aesthetics and style. Sometimes the same individuals the magazine is trying to critique.

While kicking over Neoclassical economics isn't necessarily a bad thing, I think we really need to take a long look at why we should be doing that. I feel sometimes it is very easy to get caught up in these catch phrases/slogans suggesting certain ideas, thus giving us blinders to anything considered "business as usual". Let's say you challenge it and you prove that there are many flaws, what do you have to replace neoclassical economics? Communism? Anarchy? Other schools of economic thought that still lie within our economic framework to some degree? I'm curious because I don't know that answer.

So while you may be right in your economic philosophy, (at least in my book with those who talked about the Austrian school) I don't think that is the battle Adbusters is picking. I think they are really going after the over consumptive culture in an aesthetically pleasing format. This aesthetic appeal would draw in those who live off aesthetics as a way to identify themselves, and Adbusters's look definitely can pull in those who are on the cutting edge of trends or fringe thoughts.

I'm sure everyone can agree that consuming more resources than necessary to survive is a great waste. Especially when those items of mistaken value dictate social standing and interactions. A very complex mix indeed that has no clear answer in one area, but requires a multitude of fields.

So yes, Adbusters isn't doing a very great job with talking about economics, but this doesn't seem to be a magazine looking at fiscal conservatives, libertarians, or static liberals. It's about how we just consume way to much and how our pseudo identity is created by goods made by other people.

As for the comment about totalitarianism, I agree. The only hope now is to create a country claim yourself indigenous peoples to escape international laws probably. Unfortunately with population rising and our global resources beginning to really get strained, I'm not sure how long we are going to make it without some heavy trans-national government intervention. But if you believe that you can change everyone's mindset to one that is less consumptive, more agrarian and slightly anarcho-communist (or anarcho-capitalist because I'm still trying to figure out which one is better), then I think it can work. I don't think anything is impossible, but this is a definitely an uphill battle (which are always the most fun).

But as for sheep. Don't become a sheep to Adbusters just because they recognize people are mostly sheep. It's not that they aren't right, but that would just be hypocritical to what they talk about if you are a sheep to them. It can happen easily when you get passionate about things as I'm sure it has happened to all of us at one point in time. But in any event, I want some posters with giant sheep on them to walk around with!!!

I'm bored of McAnonymous and Llyod. We are they obsessively posting on this website with pro-corporate rants on the one hand (McAnonymous) and capitalist-libertarian mumblings on the other (Lloyd). While I appreciate their desire to engage intellectually, maybe they could engage at another website for awhile and give us all a break from their overzealous postings.

It is like when you are in a class and the same one or two people keep raising their hands... Hey McAnonymous and Llyod, can you be quiet for a few weeks and see what everyone else thinks?

This is exactly why I majored in History...As such, I acknowledge that when it comes to anything remotely involving humans as a variable in any sort of equation there can never be any kind of certainty in the matter. And to be clear...I was always under the impression that pre-historical societies were overwhelming communistic in nature....I understand supply and demand...but that's because I had the benefit of being born in the latter half of the 20th century...In a pre-historical tribal situation people are forced to cooperate and collectivize in order maximize their respective potentials to live...generally. Also, the value of 'things' is nothing but true. Their actual applicable value. An Axe is worth so much because...metal is difficult to forge and only a few people have the skill to make one and it kills and chops and cuts and so on and so forth...Post turn of the 20th century economics seems to have taken the same path as the law did in the United States complex, indecipherable, and with out the contextual understanding of the humanity from which the ideas were created.

In a blinding moment of clarity in an otherwise muddled existence, George Monbiot allowed the following to escape from his mouth. “In Paris, some of us tried to tackle this question [of the evils of capitalism] in a session called “life after capitalism.” By the end of it, I was as unconvinced by my own answers as I was by everyone else’s. While I was speaking, the words died in my mouth, as it struck me with horrible clarity that as long as incentives to cheat exist (and they always will) none of our alternatives could be applied universally without totalitarianism.”

There will be no "revolution." You will fail, because the facts of life are capitalistic just as Lloyd points out and any contrary ecnomic theory is - by definition - negative. Regulate capitalism to make up for it's shortcomings, but to think that some new "paradigm" is on the horizon is plain silly. As your friend Monbiot points out, post-capitalism can only be achieved via totalitarianism (affirmed by common sense and history) which means that the masses that believe in the supremacy of the individual over the collective will never allow you to succeed. Sorry.

You have nothing to add, only an impotent attempt to deconstruct.

therell always be a system that corresponds with a promoted set of values. if progress likes a more streamined consumerist popularity, then theres a model to drain that too. we accept a hierarchy and the exchange of life for work and understand money is the reward. this reward can be used however we like, and see the social bond when this reward goes straight back up the hierarchy. we agree we dislike uneven profit, but with the disappearance behind collective words, not names, association to responsibility becomes less apparent. nobody liked serfdom, agrarianism or communism but some like capitalism as sort of 'best of'. i can still freely hate the king, but likewise, can still do f*all about it whatever model of economic excellence im presented. how many more tax rises can we take to float current failings whilst trial and error fixes to models go on if at all.

Again, what is the fear of mentioning the real enemy? Dig deeper Adbusters and tell me who is to blame for the economic and consumerist malaise we are in....

Why not go above the leftist/rightist politics and unite the two with a Jeffersonian philosophy. The right's unique view of personal liberty coupled with the anti-consumerist and environmental drive of the left....all centered around real money and opposition to the Federal Reserve Bank. This is my dream! And it seems to me so logical!

Is it really the fault of nerdy economics professors who teach Neo-classical economics? Do they really know better? Every economic study begins with Adam Smith, not Keynes....However, I will admit that von Mises is often never heard of and this should be changed.