Top products from r/AskConservatives

> Lol I like how you cherry pick. You totally avoided the bulk of my last comment

Lol, I like how you stand up straw men... like the bulk of your last comment which I ignored because it was irrelevant. I also like how you use "lol" as an argument... just pretend your debate opponent is missing some painfully obvious point which everyone is aware of... and you don't have to argue whatever that imaginary point was.

The bulk of your comment started with this:

> So yes we’re talking about the disadvantaged. You’re pretending it doesn’t exist and you need me to spoon feed you instances where the wealthy take advantage....." yadda, yadda, yadda.

I never said there weren't people who are disadvantaged. I never said that rich people never take advantage of others. The whole bit is irrelevant and I ignored it because it didn't pose a question and contained nothing of substance with which I really disagree... just some huffing about how exhausting you find it that someone you're debating with doesn't just agree with you.

But your position is NOT that the rich sometimes take advantage of people but that they are only be rich because they take advantage of people. It's not that I "can't say anything bad about rich people" but that I'm saying there's nothing bad with being rich in-and-of itself... a rich person has to have done something bad for me to condemn them, for you it's just enough that they are rich and you assume, wrongly, that they must have done something bad to be so rich.

That is the premise which I'm contesting. I'm not bothering to argue with you about stuff on which we already agree, that rich people can be bad people and do bad things.

> Anyway have you actually read anything about income inequality? Can you link please?

Sure, here, here, really any decent economics textbook not written by by a marxist would suffice.

Well, as you probably know these Economic schools of thought are usually associated with some university or group of Economists. For instance, the Chicago School was associated with the University of Chicago. Thomas Sowell is a very popular Conservative economist that adheres to the Chicago School who put out his book Basic Economics a few years ago. Although it's a book about Economics, it's written from a popular perspective meant to appeal to the general layman. Many Libertarians follow the Austrian School and still read the books of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, both unorthodox economists.

Economics is one of those subjects that often takes on an ideological nature. As much as one wants it to remain scientific, people from all creeds are guilty of ideoligising Economics. The Left is not exempt from doing this, either. Marxist Economists still teach the Labor Theory of Value, an idea rejected by mainstream Neoclassical Economics. In fact, Marxists pretty much reject all of Neoclassical Economics in favor of Marx's approach to Economics. I remember listening to some lectures by Richard Wolff, a popular Marxist Economist, and he said when he discusses economics with other Economists they never know what he's talking about, because Marxian economics is so radically different from mainstream economics, since it has different definitions and premises.

> It also seems odd to disagree with the majority of universities teachings.

These schools of thought form due to disagreements in theory and interpreting data. Marxist, Neoclassical, Austrian, Modern Monetary Theorist, etc. economists remain scientific and objective in their approach to Economics, but each have different theories regarding how the Economy works. People tend to latch on to the theories that agree with them or confirm their bias. This isn't just a Conservative thing, it's an everybody thing.