All of them wrong. But avoid economic understanding. Pluralism is only a virtue to the extent that established fact is unavailable. Foucault has absolutely nothing to contribute to any empirical science. It's a triviality compared to privilege. I'm ignoring it because it is of insignificant effect compared to the things I understand and you do not.
I stopped here. Anyone saying such nonsense, as they ignore economic debate, is a non-economic cultist. It of course also explains why you ignore injustice such as discrimination.
If you want to claim I said something, include a direct, verbatim, in-context quote, as I do. Otherwise, it is a safe bet that you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
Then what explains your relentless attempts to divert attention from the massive injustices of privilege to the comparatively trivial injustices of discrimination, hmmmmmmmmm?
I did pass Econ101 and engineering economics so please "un-dumb" me in your mind. Suppliers provide what customers want. It's a bit trivial, when you speak in terms of a society you shouldn't speak JUST academically. What you're saying is just a definition. "Suppliers provide what customers want" BUT who is determining what customers WANT? Do customers have total freedom in wanting sth? Nowadays we are living in the world of media. It's the media that is putting ideas in the public's thoughts. AND when the customer needs sth they can only use what is been provided for them and dictated to them. Reasonable. There is no surprise for ordinary people because they DON'T have any choice. It's the capitalist that owns the media and advertising. So the capitalists can do as they want to people's minds and shape their habits and wishes. And it's the capitalist that owns the PRODUCTION. So either way they can and will do what they see profitable for their pockets to the people. Let me define capitalism , Enslaving the majority by a minority.
WE THE SHEEPLE Let's not get silly. For the most part, advertising manipulates customers to want goods/services. Pricing is a constant concern, so there IS competition. Which is also the a primary concern amongst buyers. The system works about as good as should. If you are looking to "blame" someone (singular or plural), look in a mirror. You are no different from the millions of others in a market-economy. You buy what others buy and hope that you can "fit in" to the consensus. Otherwise, go live in the wilds of north Alaska! You own a car? You're an awful "capitalist"! Go back and read the definitions, dammit! Capitalism is a method of exchange for goods and services (including investments! And that is all! Whether it is good or bad is how we intend it to be! (I live in a Social Democracy in Europe and capitalism aint so bad because taxation takes the bite out of massive accumulation of capital at the top. Which no longer happens in the USofA!) OUR PROBLEM IN THE US IS UPPER-INCOME TAXATION THAT WE STOOPIDLY LET RECKLESS RONNIE REDUCE 30 YEARS AGO!!! That act alone on his part spawned the Income Disparity that now plagues the US! (For your edification, see OECD Income Disparity comparisons amongst nations here! Note that the US is the highest of any well-developed nation and Europe is amongst the lower-group because of higher comparative-taxation!) An economy is neither all-good nor all-bad, and it functions according to how we-the-sheeple decide it should function. For some hair-brained reason we were all elated when Reckless Ronnie reduced upper-income taxation, and the flood of investment spawned a minor economic expansion. For which we paid the consequences in the following decade. Yeah, right, so blame it on "the capitalists"! Whoever they are! Wherever they are! It is we the sheeple that elect people to Congress, and Congress plus the Presidency manage economic-policy! Obama never had a chance to change things, because WE-THE-SHEEPLE VOTED THAT THE REPLICANTS SHOULD CONTROL BOTH THE H-OF-R AND THE SENATE AFTER HIS SECOND YEAR IN OFFICE! Open your eyes to the factual historical evidence of what has been happening in the US ever since we foolishly elected Replicant Ronnie into the White House ... !
They are absolutely luxuries, in that they only exist in very rich and very carefully balanced capitalist democracies. Remove any of the contributing ballast and those luxuries will be the first things to evaporate. Besides, calling them necessities when others can't even find a meal, is morally objectionable. ESPECIALLY in a society in which even the unproductive are well fed. Exactly. Because far too many people demand all of these luxuries, calling them 'necessity'. If we didn't keep demanding more more more, those people without enough to eat might have a chance. The worst of it is, we keep adding to the list of demands. It's not good enough to have freedom of choice, safety, free education, free healthcare, clean water, etc .... we now insist that the unproductive are feted, too. The irony is that it's the very people who claim to 'care' who keep demanding more. They're not sacrificing their First World freedoms and lifestyle - no no, they want more of the same.
That IS the injustice. Privileged First Worlders demanding ever more feting and freedoms, while people starve.
Arguing with insulated, spoiled, culturally-limited, posturing First Worlders is like talking to an only child - of rich parents.
The problem is that you've allowed your supply side economics to cloud your ability to appreciate basic logic. Right wing economics for you.
Look .. Lovey, we live in DEMOCRACIES. As long as democracy reigns, we're all free to manage our participation in the system (the system which coincidentally gives you the freedoms and luxuries you appear to take for granted) as we see fit. Remove that freedom to choose, and you remove justice, equity, fairness, and the opportunity to protest. You will never be able to opt out if you find you don't care for your necessarily reduced circumstances, or suddenly realise that the new regime reduces the human condition. Your 'important thoughts' will never be heard, because democracy will have been lost.
Don't dodge now. It's strange that the only economics that you actually refer to is supply side economics. How can you justify that?
There is no such thing. Crikey, we can't even isolate the market to capitalism. Bunging two words together to pretend political economic knowledge is far from cunning. In your error, you also dodged again. Why do you think supply side economics is the bee's knees? What has determined your focus on right wing economics?
Such naivety. There is no need for them to go together. A capitalist country can be undemocratic (e.g. state capitalism). A democratic country can be anti-capitalist (e.g. market socialism). In political economy, there is no capitalist democracy analysis. There is, however, differences in three studied economic paradigms: social democracy, liberal democracy and Anglo-Saxon. The last one typically describes market fundamentalism, with high poverty generated through supply side economics. Dont dodge now, why do you support the same economic approach adopted by right wing ideologues and pretend to be left wing?
The usage of such terminology reveals an economic stance that is not based upon factual assessment but that based upon idealogy. I disengaged when I realized that @Reiver didn't understand that @crank view of anarchism falls under the umbrella of heterodox economics (there are two branches- authoritarian like Reiver and libertarian like me). Crank isn't necessarily as knowledgeable on economics as you and I (no offense meant Crank, we all had to start somewhere), and once I realized this I engaged with her to figure out approximately where she falls.
I disengaged with Ted when he couldn't offer an economic argument on an economics forum. That he pats the right wing fake libertarians on the head, despite merely parroting the economics fed to them by big business, is all I need to work out how the anarchist efforts are illusionary.
Why .. thanks TITS, I think! Seriously though, please ... dear god ... don't inflict an 'economics education' upon me. I've spent my life avoiding bean counters, and spreadsheets make me want to die As for where I fall personally, probably commie. I'm a firm believer in common purse within the collective, provided every member is on the same page - IOW, there is no room for non-productivity, or resource hogging, or discretional spending. I don't have a particular preference in relation to the fine details of state economics - as long as it's capitalist democracy. That's the only model which allows both freedom of choice (the freedom to succeed OR fail), and the foundations for success it buys via social programs like public education and healthcare. Edited to add that my only 'anarchism' is probably my determination to avoid putting anything back into the system. I've spent the majority of my adult life doing whatever possible to keep limited assets out of corporate hands, and in the hands of the collective. We're determined not to give it away to fat cats - via a dependence upon external infrastructure (we're off grid, and grow food, etc), or via discretional spending. We're determined to preserve and build upon what already exists, so that it will continue to house and feed people for generations. Assuming, of course, that those generations don't blow it all by choosing full reliance on the system and/or forfeiture of the lands in favour of discretional spending. So far, so good!