farright

wait so why did you reply to my comment instead of just to the original comment? Is there something wrong with me addressing inaccuracies in the portrayal of Schiff's role, even if I don't address the aspects that interest you?

I don't see what it is in my comment that you disagree with.

I was only pointing out that Schiff funded the Bolsheviks because of his political views that were related to bring an American Jew. And there seems to be plenty of evidence in the Wikipedia article for that asking.

I never made the claim that Schiff was particularly important. Can you point to something specifically in my post that if incorrect?

Based on the wikipedia article it looks like Jacob Schiff funded the Russian Revolution because he was Jewish, and disliked the anti-Semitism of the Tzarist regime. As the article discusses, he funded the Japanese side in the Russo-Japanese war for the same reason.

Given this I don't think it makes sense to say that the Russian Revolution was funded by "Wall St." but rather that it was supported by a wealthy Jewish American who opposed the Tzarist regime.

Both freshwater and saltwater would agree with the comment I replied to. freshwater and saltwater econ differ in their approach to macro models. Both sides broadly agree on general equilibrium theory as kind of first order approximation, and the post was a summary of general equilibrium theory.

Which side do you think would disagree or are you just trying to bluff me out with technical terms you don't fully understand?

As to funding, can you point to major sources of funding for academic econ research that would introduce bias?

It's hilarious that the one thing that is consistently down voted on hn is economic orthodoxy.

This is absolutely no different to the anti vaccination movement.

People are simply too lazy and arrogant to listen to what the economics profession has to say, and ignore that fact that the methods, organization and incentives of the economics profession are identical to the rest of academicia.

Isn't that exactly what the fake news sites works say?

This is an interesting question, but don't forget to also ask "how much would they make if they weren't working for Uber?"

Same goes for Walmart. If you've been to Walmart and Starbucks it's pretty clear that most Walmart workers would never be able to get a job at Starbucks.

You are interpreting "all lives matter" to mean this.

It could also mean that black people are not especially target by the police and that outrage at law enforcement is misplaced. For example we know that the rates of police violence against black people vs white people roughly mirrors arrest and conviction rates.

Now you might consider this incorrect, but I think it's a debate that has to be had in the open and not shut down by calling people racist.

Sure, I will give an example. Most people on the left believe that black Americans commit more crime per capita then whites, and that this is due to various sociostructural phenomena. However another common viewpoint is that the gap in conviction rates is actually due to a biased justice system and blacks do not actually commit more crime.

The latter view is rarely argued in academic circles so I've never seen it rigorously defended. But it is passed off as fact to the general public.

Now I am not able to correct this later group because if I do so, not only will they attack me as racist, but the former group will not defend me. In fact the former group will say "the only reason you would present this fact in isolation is because you want to imply black people are genetically inclined to crime". This would most likely result in disciplinary action in my workplace.