Neoclassical Sheep Walk
As the old paradigm crumbles, the fatal flaws of neoclassical economics are quickly being exposed to the world. This is a time of reawakening and rebirth: the age in which a new, more chaotic, more biologically and ecologically based paradigm is struggling to be born. This is the moment to align ourselves with the mavericks – to become agitators and provocateurs. This is the moment to openly challenge our professors and their neoclassical dogma and force the world to face the havoc their models have wrought. You can start by printing off the Kick it Over Manifesto and nailing it, Martin Luther-style, to your professor’s door. Then try staging a Neoclassical Sheep Walk down the corridor of your economics department.
Make this global campus uprising unstoppable.
You can download the manifesto at kickitover.org.
23 comments on the article “Neoclassical Sheep Walk”
Displaying 11 - 20 of 23
Page 2 of 3
McAnonymous
Ah...its working. Little by little, reason will crack the hysterical group-think haze that rests over the culture jammer crowd.
BTW - I'm not pro-corporate, I'm pro-"leave me the hell alone unless I'm doing something wrong." I know that doesn't sit well with you "social engineers" looking for action and revolution.
McLarry
This will probably go nowhere, but I'm bored and the computer's on so....
The problem with the 'leave me the hell alone unless I'm doing something wrong' laissez faire argument is that has been the course of this country and it has failed. IMO, better to start putting things in check before we get to the 'doing something wrong.' Sorry, but business is going to push the envelope until they get caught. It's inherent in economics as growth will not continue to occur without the 'doing something wrong.' It's all over the news now as so much of it is coming to light: Madoff, banks, hedge funds, even Enron has been popping up as of last week.
The real hysterical group are those who are affraid of radical change as it will force them to step outside their selfish comfort zone. The idea of any sort of revolution, whether it be by force and arms or subtle changes politically must scare the hell out of some. Funny how the health care debate here in the US just freaks conservative leaning people as the pundits they listen too throw in the socialism card when discussing it. These are the same people who will rely on Social Security checks at retirement (until it runs out) and the same people who rely on unemployment checks when the 'leave me the hell alone unless I'm doing something wrong' company fires them because they either have to restructure and downsize due to poor management, fraud, massive CEO payouts OR their job was just filled by an underpaid kid in a third world country.
Funny how the rest of the world gets by just fine with socialized medicine, etc.... What scares some is that they think they're losing out on some opportunity to make a profit off something that is not obtainable to but a small few. And in turn they support a structure and system that is inherently designed in an ever progressing manner, to keep those very people from ever profiting or progressing.
Whether you realize it or not, that attitude of just leave me alone is exactly what these businesses want people to think. So long as you do so, expect to see more recessions, lay offs, scam, greed, etc... that will in no way benefit you.
But whatever... believe what you want. You're more than entitled to your opinion.
McLarry
This will probably go nowhere, but I'm bored and the computer's on so....
The problem with the 'leave me the hell alone unless I'm doing something wrong' laissez faire argument is that has been the course of this country and it has failed. IMO, better to start putting things in check before we get to the 'doing something wrong.' Sorry, but business is going to push the envelope until they get caught. It's inherent in economics as growth will not continue to occur without the 'doing something wrong.' It's all over the news now as so much of it is coming to light: Madoff, banks, hedge funds, even Enron has been popping up as of last week.
The real hysterical group are those who are affraid of radical change as it will force them to step outside their selfish comfort zone. The idea of any sort of revolution, whether it be by force and arms or subtle changes politically must scare the hell out of some. Funny how the health care debate here in the US just freaks conservative leaning people as the pundits they listen too throw in the socialism card when discussing it. These are the same people who will rely on Social Security checks at retirement (until it runs out) and the same people who rely on unemployment checks when the 'leave me the hell alone unless I'm doing something wrong' company fires them because they either have to restructure and downsize due to poor management, fraud, massive CEO payouts OR their job was just filled by an underpaid kid in a third world country.
Funny how the rest of the world gets by just fine with socialized medicine, etc.... What scares some is that they think they're losing out on some opportunity to make a profit off something that is not obtainable to but a small few. And in turn they support a structure and system that is inherently designed in an ever progressing manner, to keep those very people from ever profiting or progressing.
Whether you realize it or not, that attitude of just leave me alone is exactly what these businesses want people to think. So long as you do so, expect to see more recessions, lay offs, scam, greed, etc... that will in no way benefit you.
But whatever... believe what you want. You're more than entitled to your opinion.
Inimicus
Man exists only in so far as he is opposed. Georg Hegel. ~ McAnonymous and Lloyd should see Obvious's childish request to leave as confirmation that thier thoughts an opinion contain enough merrit to inspire opposition. Otherwise you would just be part of the boring circlejerk that adbusters spend their time doing rather than acting.
Inimicus
Man exists only in so far as he is opposed. Georg Hegel. ~ McAnonymous and Lloyd should see Obvious's childish request to leave as confirmation that thier thoughts an opinion contain enough merrit to inspire opposition. Otherwise you would just be part of the boring circlejerk that adbusters spend their time doing rather than acting.
teaky10
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!!!
teaky10
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!!!
Rodrigo
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.
Rodrigo
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.
lychen
funny...if you substitute anthropogenic global warming theory for neoclassical ecnomics.....you just might have something there....
Pages
Add a new comment