A new piece perfectly encapsulates their strategy of framing an argument in terms that make it easy to dismiss opposing criticisms rather than engage with realities
Very interesting post - thank you. Could you kindly check the LSE report link? When I click on it the response is: "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again".
It’s depressing how these think tanks bad faith arguments seep into public discourse, brainwashing people into accepting policies that only deepen inequality.
Keep exposing these tactics, even if your reach is small, once someone sees the truth, they don't go back, so it's progress even when you enlighten a few people everyday.
Very good question. I need another full time job. Hopefully people who are concerned about this stuff are trying to spread the info so people see through the performance to the true motive.
Same, but I have some ideas, inspired by ‘Led by donkeys’ in the UK and Punters Politics in Australia. Stand by! (but as you were, ‘cause I don't move fast)
This is crucial if we expect them to be able to open people's eyes. Its absolutely possible though. Mihi did a good job of it with here Mata doco on Seymour. This is a small country afterall, without many degrees of separation....
Only yesterday I was watching an interview with Joseph Stiglitz where he referred to trickle down. How did he ever get that so-called Nobel Prize in Economics when he talks about such economic heresy as trickle down?
What’s crazy is he claimed in another article that inequality was going down. They just say whatever they think will win the argument regardless of the facts. Then they claim things are “complicated” when the facts don’t align with their position.
i was reading to see what he thinks *is* to blame, if “trickle-down” isn’t. And of course, it never came. So he’s quite aware of the social issues, but he’s just going to keep talking at us all, reducing any objections to a belief in “trickle-down”. He makes it sound childish and silly with that hyphen, and the way he uses it as a reductive metonym for the whole neo-liberal critique. Yuck. (That’s me, reducing my rage to a childish, silly monosyllable.)
Very interesting post - thank you. Could you kindly check the LSE report link? When I click on it the response is: "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again".
The link should be fixed. Depending on your access you may not be able to get the PDF.
The links works and I've got the report - Thank you
Cool name! Reminds me of Zulu words!! I see it's Swahili!
Yes it is indeed Swahili! It means Old Worker - a Tanzanian colleague named me that when I retired from my economist job in Kenya
Hahaha no, it doesn't mean old worker. It means a man of action.
"Mzee" doesn't always mean old, in this context it means experienced or old in the profession.
ah OK thanks for that!
It’s depressing how these think tanks bad faith arguments seep into public discourse, brainwashing people into accepting policies that only deepen inequality.
Keep exposing these tactics, even if your reach is small, once someone sees the truth, they don't go back, so it's progress even when you enlighten a few people everyday.
Great mahi Ryan. So how do we get Jack Tame, John Cambell et al to learn how to deconstruct/deflate/expose ACT and National's rhetoric? In real time?
And how do we flood the media scape exposing this nonsense?
Very good question. I need another full time job. Hopefully people who are concerned about this stuff are trying to spread the info so people see through the performance to the true motive.
Same, but I have some ideas, inspired by ‘Led by donkeys’ in the UK and Punters Politics in Australia. Stand by! (but as you were, ‘cause I don't move fast)
Look forward to hearing your ideas!
This is crucial if we expect them to be able to open people's eyes. Its absolutely possible though. Mihi did a good job of it with here Mata doco on Seymour. This is a small country afterall, without many degrees of separation....
Only yesterday I was watching an interview with Joseph Stiglitz where he referred to trickle down. How did he ever get that so-called Nobel Prize in Economics when he talks about such economic heresy as trickle down?
(The interview is worth a watch - https://youtu.be/nPxjIWL-8Ck )
As I say, this one was particularly bad even for NZI. Saying that no one ever seriously talks about trickle down is just bizarre and makes no sense.
i thought it was curious the way Partridge named some real issues as part of his mansplaining. Eg, “rising inequality? blame trickle-down”
He intends to ridicule the foolish and economically ignorant of course, but once he mentioned those elephants,
What’s crazy is he claimed in another article that inequality was going down. They just say whatever they think will win the argument regardless of the facts. Then they claim things are “complicated” when the facts don’t align with their position.
i was reading to see what he thinks *is* to blame, if “trickle-down” isn’t. And of course, it never came. So he’s quite aware of the social issues, but he’s just going to keep talking at us all, reducing any objections to a belief in “trickle-down”. He makes it sound childish and silly with that hyphen, and the way he uses it as a reductive metonym for the whole neo-liberal critique. Yuck. (That’s me, reducing my rage to a childish, silly monosyllable.)
You are welcome
Fyi. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800523.2.111?items_per_page=10&query=%22international+monetary+fund%22+rockefeller&snippet=true&sort_by=byDA