A long time ago I decided to become a lone wolf as they say. I slowly and quietly pushed everyone out of my life thinking that it was the right thing to do. I guess I wanted to get in touch with myself you know, get to know the “real” Andy. Boy was that mistake! I don’t regret it because I’ve learned a lot and became very mature in the process. The big problem is that I’ve become an old man trapped inside a 23yr olds body. Sad pero true. I don’t have my good old friends hitting me up to hang out, I don’t show up in pictures, nada! I miss laughing, sharing hugs, high fives and jokes. I miss a lot of it! I just hope it’s not to late to get my youth back and rekindle some old friendships. I’m tired of being a lone wolf 8-(
“The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.”—FBI broke law for years in phone record searches
You didn’t get the Adbusters piece. Also you’re a selfish nihilist. You simply don’t care for the rest of humanity. Don’t blame Adbusters for it. Moreover it’s called Adbusters not AdBusters (the latter is an ad blocking software).
Btw. the sentence you cited
“accustoms the students to the idea of individual choices and preferences”
doesn’t mean that Adbusters is against individual choices and preferences. The whole Adbusters thing is about making the right individual choice. It means that the textbook actually ignores the reality where most people don’t have these choices.
Last but not least you should read a history book. Before “government interference” people starved in the USA and child labour was common like in Asia today. Remember the Great Depression? I repeat: If you don’t have a clue and you don’t care stop badmouthing others who do. It’s people like you that fuck the world.
once upon a time in high school I thought his publication was cool. I knew I what I was interested in but I had not yet formed any real opinions. It preached something that wasn’t coming from the mainstream media. It wasn’t what our government was telling us.
Then I grew a brain and realized you have to work for what you want and you shouldn’t need to sacrifice yourself for others (not because sacrifice is bad but because that requirement will never ever ever be satisfied)
I think it is a weird problem that millions of students are taught from a very limited number of economics textbooks. Not because these popular textbooks are “bad” and teach wrong principles but because no textbook teaches the “pros and cons”, those being what we can equate to positive and negative effects on individuals, of each idealology ,whether they are flawed in logical reasoning and basic principles, or not. It’s like propoganda— in way. Most students of Econ 101 (and Econ 102 [microeconomics] if they choose a business field as a major) won’t use or remember most of what is taught to them in those classes. So why not teach them the typical effects of the varying ecopolitical stances?
Well anyway from an Adbusters article entitled ” Economic Indoctrination” which criticizes the use of influential economist Greogory Mankiw’s economic textbook in colleges across the nation.
FUCK Adbusters. for one reason, this:
“By repeating his trivial examples, Mankiw accustoms the students to the idea of individual choices and preferences. The words “poor” and “rich” are rarely used. But, more surprisingly, there is also no mention of the power of corporations to shape tastes. This is because Mankiw’s world is a world of small firms operating on perfectly competitive markets. “Corporate America” is not part of the picture. No MacDonald’s, no Nike, no Microsoft.”
1) accustoms the students to the idea of individual choices and preferences
????? I’m sorry. I didn’t know our lives weren’t for our own living
2) Rich and Poor?
I’m sorry but it’s not my problem and it’s not our “duty” to steal from the rich and rob from the poor
3) how corporations shape our tastes?
Maybe if you had a defined set of moral principals for yourself then you wouldn’t let corporate marketing and products shape you tastes.
I just.. I have no words on this. It’s infuriating.
-Basically any argument against their accusastions would be fruitless because the main point they fail to realize or mention is that the problem here is not “neoliberal propoganda” . Is not his use of trivial examples using coke and pizza. Is not his avoidance of rich men vs poor men. IS NOT his failure to mention the problem of corporate America and it’s so called “shaping of tastes”.
It’s the melding of political and economic power.
What they fail to mention is the source of our economic problems is not a left leaning or right leaning economist or textbook but the influence political power and government interference in the economy in creating long term disequilibrium to gain short term profits and votes.
and the failure to educate our students on the varying idealiogies and their impacts.
But not really what is the point of this article?
“As he explicitly tells his teaching fellows, Mankiw’s interest is in shaping the minds of thousands of citizens and future leaders around the world. Mankiw’s world is one where “there is no such thing as a society.” Rather, the world is made up of isolated individuals. But it is a world where fairness prevails: everybody gets what they deserve. It is also a world where, thanks to the magic effect of markets, private enterprise and property rights, standards of living rise constantly. It’s a beautiful world … if only it existed.”
I have no problem with a publication attacking an ideal. But “if only it existed”.
Great way to attack a man and not his principles.
“if only it existed”
Sooo then why doesn’t it? Why can’t it? How could it? It doesn’t explain anything. I’m sick of empty attacks on ideas.
FUCK THIS SHIT
p.s. I’m drunk and I hope this makes some sort of sense. i’m sure I didn’t lay out my thoughts fully.
But did you know that we’re at risk of losing the Internet as we know it? Millions of Americans don’t know that a battle over the future of the Internet is being played out right now in Washington. How it ends will have deep repercussions for decades to come.
Right now a film student in Idaho can upload a video the same way a Hollywood movie studio can. A small upstart company can launch a brilliant idea that challenges the Fortune 500. An independent journalist can break a story without waiting for a newspaper to run or print it.
The principle of “Network Neutrality” is what makes this open communications possible. Net Neutrality is what allows us to go wherever we want online. Our relationship with the phone and cable companies stops when we pay for our Internet service. These companies can not block, control or interfere with what we search for or create online; nor can they prioritize some content over others -making the Hollywood video load faster than the kid’s video in Idaho.
On the other side are the Internet service providers, who want to dismantle Net Neutrality. Not only do they want to provide Internet service, but they want to be able to charge users to prioritize their content, effectively giving themselves the ability to choose which content on the Web loads fast, slow or not at all. The film student, the small entrepreneur, and the independent journalist will be lost in the ether, unable to compete with other, more established companies who can pay for a spot in the fast lane.
Gone is the level playing field. Gone is the multitude of voices on the Web. Gone is the Internet as we know it - unless we act now.
De Stijl, Bauhaus, constructivism and Dada … Heartfield, Dumbar and Kalman … Design has long stood at the forefront of aesthetic and political change. But after the Second World War we became entangled in the thicket of consumer capitalism and lost our way.
Our magazines decayed into toxic mindscapes – noisy, fractured places ruled by ads. We designed millions of glittering, short-lived products destined to spend eternity in the purgatory of landfills. We championed consumption, aestheticized and validated waste and constructed false emotional glows around brands. For 50 years we glorified corporate power and kissed corporate ass. The marketplace became the soul of our profession. Now facing a warming planet and a precarious future, a new generation of designers is stepping beyond that sorry history to forge our profession’s path into the future.
Do we still have it? Can we invent a new magazine aesthetic and transcend the death of print? Can we design sustainable products and rid our cities of waste? Can we cultivate new sensibilities for our post-materialist age? There are hints of this new aesthetic in Kenya Hara’s Designing Design when he talks about “a future without artifice,” “whispered value systems” and creating “vehicles of thought and feeling.” There are clues of it in Jean-Marie Massaud’s mission to create “a new art de vivre” and inspired examples of it in Banksy’s (and other street artists’) heady mix of politics, design and the intimacies of everyday life.
The first steps in the fight for the soul of our profession are to boldly rise against the obnoxious billboards springing up in our cities, to combat the antidemocratic viruses invading cyberspace and to resist the corruption of our identities by brands. Our century will be a time of tremendous ideological clashes, paradigm shifts and meta-meme warfare on all fronts. As designers, we must be the advance guards – positioning ourselves at the forefront of every struggle and debate.
Just as farmers are the keepers of land, we are the keepers of mindscape. We must nurture it and care for it and make sure that there will always be wilderness, diversity and freedom there.
The noble “international community” which is currently scrambling to send its “humanitarian aid” to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce.
Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti’s people to move (in former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s phrase) “from absolute misery to a dignified poverty” has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies.