Профиль

Reminds me of this gem 😎 www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-0...

See, if you took a group like that and made them form an actual university that had to try to get smart PhDs, I would bet the longterm effect is actually useful work. As far as I can tell though, right now they're just doing short ads for populistish conservativism.

I thought Praeger U was mostly a youtube channel. Do they have an actual school?

Hi, I'm Dr. Alex, the Alex Chair of Alex's Opinions at Alex U.

"I'm employed to answer for the sins of Bill Gates. And you?"

But don't they also generate value? Sorry, I'm not following.

Universal Basic Ivory-Tower

Eventually literally every American will have a well-paid named chair.

Proposal: unlimited political donations, but only through founding universities.

Sorry, I don't follow, could you elaborate? I don't see how what I'm talking about changes what happens to shareholders.

Personally, if every billionaire's political ambitions were played out through endowed chairs and well-staffed think tanks it'd be a beautiful world. I've frequently found think tanks I don't particularly align with do good research because there's still a norm of honesty in research.

No, they do define it. That's part of why that part was so weird to me. Likely they would say I'm missing the point, but it struck me as contradictory.

I feel like there's this general thing where *our* think tanks are philosophers for justice and *their* think tanks are spooky conspiracies.

(for the record, they are pro-immigration and probably could be described as feminist; I'm just picking on these two things that stuck out to me as not super rigorous)

No, we're not especially outgoing. She has had more friends already than I've had my whole life, and she thinks about them a lot! I could live in a library basement alone, quite happily. She'd go nuts.

Anyway, I like having my views challenged, and maybe I'm just too invested in conventional economics to see my own folly, but some of these views just seem incorrect, even silly to me.

That is, if moving women into the formal economy displaced male labor, you'd have to also say being a stereotypical 1950s housewife displaced the male opportunity to bake cakes, sew dresses, and tend to children and the elderly.

But additionally, as feminist economics has been screaming for three generations now, women who weren't paid wages still did a lot of work! If you move a homemaker into a conventional job doing the same stuff, it gets counted in GDP, but the economy hasn't actually changed.

I hope it goes without saying that women, especially poor women, have always worked in the labor system. Also, those women didn't just take male jobs--they created value and spent money. Seems to be basic lump of labor fallacy.

Of all the things neoliberalism is accused of, surely restricting a free market in labor is not it? More oddly, at one point talking about the desire for full employment, they say it's unlikely since we couldn't even get it when women were kept out of the work force (!)