Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 10, 2018, 05:25:45 pm
-
http://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/
when a progressive friend says something with which I disagree or that I know to be incorrect, I’m hesitant to point it out. This hesitancy is a consequence of the different treatment one tends to receive from those on the Right and Left when expressing a difference of opinion.
Outbursts of emotional hostility from progressive activists – now described as Social Justice Warriors or SJWs – have come to be known as getting ‘triggered.’ This term originally applied to sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but activists have adopted it to describe the anxiety and discomfort they experience when they are exposed to views with which they disagree. “Fuck free speech!” one group of social justice advocates recently told Vice Media, as if this justified the growing belief among university students that conservatives should be prevented from speaking on college campuses.
...conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility. The conservative hears the progressive’s latest demands and says, “I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think you’ve overlooked the following…” In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, “I have no idea why you would believe that. You’re probably a racist.”
-
...conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility.
Sorry to hear about your dislocated shoulder (no doubt caused by patting yourself on the back so hard).
-
I have no problem listening to a difference of opinion as long as it adds new information to their POV as opposed to repeated diatribes reworded (usually in one line sentences) to sound like it's new data but now delivered in a more condescending tone with a bit of humor thrown in that only comes across as dismissive ridicule.
This kind of poster only proves who is the least talented at debating a topic.
-
A normally reasonable site with factual content that is right of centre, but this is a terrible article. The author is unqualified in the field (completing a Bachelor of Arts) and hardly has enough life experience to discuss the "deeper grasp of the world's complexity". In and of itself, of course, it's fine to have views and express them without specific qualification or even experience, but it's hardly the kind of piece you would then hold out as carrying much (if any) weight. I could probably get a more substantial opinion down the pub. Certainly it's well written - it's just lacking much in the way of substance.
The TLDR of his article? When he disagrees with a like-minded person (politically speaking) it's a much easier discussion but when he disagrees with someone with a different political view it's a harder conversation. Really? Who ever would have thought that might be he case! People who disagree with him are hostile and people who agree are nice. What a revelation!
He picks a few random examples of behaviour from the two sides under discussion, without any statistical evidence or analysis, and in a rampant display of confirmation bias suggests that is proof of his hypothesis (a hypothesis which also amounts to "if you disagree with me you're both wrong and nasty").
My major concern here is that such articles are presented as being useful, accurate, or in any way valid. What's more, for someone undertaking a degree you might suspect that he understand the value of a properly referenced article that carries supporting evidence and logical analysis - but apparently not.
I spent 2 hours this morning on a graded forum post for one of the subjects in my current master's degree, for just 500 words, because I have to be able to support my points with actual evidence and not just cherry picked anecdotes.
I can only hope that the level of political discussion will be based on a much higher quality of article than this in the future.
In basic and brief rebuttal that conservatives apparently are reasonable and logical, I'd look at the Tea Party, Brexit, many Trump-related things, and any number of extreme right groups who regularly engage in violence.
Here's the simple point - extremist views (those which insist that any other view cannot be correct by default and almost as a matter of principle) are problematic regardless of which side (or any direction - politics is far more complex than just a left and a right) they come from and typically lead to extreme commentary and actions. There is no monopoly. Combined with hyper-partisan politics which now exist in the US and, unfortunately, are rapidly becoming the norm and the majority, and you have no room for dialogue or discussion and an astonishing amount of nonsense. What's scary is that people are prepared to believe things simply because they like the sound of it.
-
I'm always suspicious when people toot their own (conservative) horn. :o
In my view there are as many vicious social warriors on both sides as well as people with whom you can have a normal discussion on a difference of opinion.
For a different project I made a self portrait last week, but it can very well be used to show how I feel when participating in some of the discussions in the coffee corner a few month ago:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201803/i-PB98GCM/0/756ebf7c/O/PEG_A700_3_02315_20180308.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201803/i-PB98GCM/A)
I actually found that when the coffee corner was closed for political debates I didn't really miss it and now that the door is cracked open again I've decided to stay away, mainly to protect my ears from the shouting on both sides.
-
But aren't you forgetting that political threads are what they are, and that the CC is so much more, with potential limited only by the number of different subjects raised?
Rather than stay away, why not raise the game in new directions? Nobody is forcing you to participate in any specific thread you may find distasteful. If more interesting, involving threads are presented, then I am sure people would engage.
As with all these things, it's easier to complain than offer a better alternative.
-
But aren't you forgetting that political threads are what they are, and that the CC is so much more, with potential limited only by the number of different subjects raised?
Rather than stay away, why not raise the game in new directions? Nobody is forcing you to participate in any specific thread you may find distasteful. If more interesting, involving threads are presented, then I am sure people would engage.
As with all these things, it's easier to complain than offer a better alternative.
Rob, I'm not complaining. Where did you get that impression?
Firstly I'm presenting an alternate view to Slobodan's OP, I see no problem with that.
Secondly, given my experience from the past, I have concluded that I'd rather spend my time on other things then political debates in the coffee corner.
Everybody makes their own choices and this is the one I made. It's in no way a judgement (or complaining about) of how others choose to spend their time.
-
Rob, I'm not complaining. Where did you get that impression?
Firstly I'm presenting an alternate view to Slobodan's OP, I see no problem with that.
Secondly, given my experience from the past, I have concluded that I'd rather spend my time on other things then political debates in the coffee corner.
Everybody makes their own choices and this is the one I made. It's in no way a judgement (or complaining about) of how others choose to spend their time.
Simply from your intention to abandon the CC because of politics; there's more to it (the CC) than politics.
Your decisions are your decisions to make, but it seems a bit extreme to take yourself away from a zone just because of one possible type of thread within it.
I have no problem at all with you giving a view that doesn't match Slobodan's; that's what makes debate debate, as his own strapline declares.
Rob
-
Simply from your intention to abandon the CC because of politics; there's more to it (the CC) than politics.
I'm not staying away from the CC in total, just from the political debates there.
-
A normally reasonable site with factual content that is right of centre, but this is a terrible article. The author is unqualified in the field (completing a Bachelor of Arts) and hardly has enough life experience to discuss the "deeper grasp of the world's complexity". In and of itself, of course, it's fine to have views and express them without specific qualification or even experience, but it's hardly the kind of piece you would then hold out as carrying much (if any) weight. I could probably get a more substantial opinion down the pub. Certainly it's well written - it's just lacking much in the way of substance.
Although I am not going to disagree with the fact that the article could be bias, the statement above is exactly the kind of rhetoric of the elitist that gets under the skin of normal people.
In the 1890s a few teams of engineers and scientists with near unlimited funding and vast experience were all trying to figure out flight. However, two young high school only educated brothers who took up hang gliding as a hobby with only funding from their bicycle shop's profits figured it out.
Your statement flies in the face of history, and not only with this example, but plenty of others.
If you're going to disagree with something, provide reasons, not some ad hominem argument about age and experience.
Other people who have changed the world with only, at most, Bachelor degrees: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc.
-
Although I am not going to disagree with the fact that the article could be bias, the statement above is exactly the kind of rhetoric of the elitist that gets under the skin of normal people.
In the 1890s a few teams of engineers and scientists with near unlimited funding and vast experience were all trying to figure out flight. However, two young high school only educated brothers who took up hang gliding as a hobby with only funding from their bicycle shop's profits figured it out.
Your statement flies in the face of history, and not only with this example, but plenty of others.
If you're going to disagree with something, provide reasons, not some ad hominem argument about age and experience.
Other people who have changed the world with only, at most, Bachelor degrees: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc.
I went on to say, "of course, it's fine to have views and express them without specific qualification or even experience". But the author himself is the one who suggested that progressives lack the conservatives "deeper grasp of the world's complexity" - you'll note I put that in quotes. My comment was specifically addressing the unreasonable assertion of the author by presenting a valid reason why they would most likely not be a position to possess that very quality in great degrees. I went on with evidence and commentary, but you've dismissed it out of hand and out of context. That's somewhat ironic, no?
I'm far from elitist and very much normal and I'm pretty middle of the road overall, but generally would be considered fiscally conservative and socially progressive, but not much in either direction. On specific issues or topics, of course, that can and does vary. The point, though, is that I'm hardly what you would label as a liberal/progressive overall.
This author, a young Uni student in Queensland, seems very well spoken (written) and intelligent and I have no doubt he is. But he's hardly in a position to suggest to anyone else that they don't have a deeper grasp of the world's complexity given his distinct lack of experience, at least to the point where others are holding his point up as authoritative. Even more so given the article provides nothing more than a couple of anecdotes in support of its argument.
And, yes, the Wright brothers figured out flight. Despite your claim, the vast majority of such advances are the exception, rather than the norm, and are typically the result of a specific field of invention rather than an overall doctrine or philosophy which typically take more time and experience to develop by their very nature. Again, I conceded immediately that anyone can have a view and they could make valid points, but this article was just hot air, personal anecdote, and a heap of confirmation bias. Given that the site in question is normally quite factual and only moderately right sided (as opposed to being extreme, an issue I discussed in my post), it was disappointing to find what really amounts to a right-wing puff piece.
Given I did raise many more points than just this, would you care to comment on them or will you leave it with an incorrect assertion of ad hominem on my part?
-
... this is a terrible article. The author is unqualified in the field (completing a Bachelor of Arts) ...
Be wary of criticising an article because of the supposed qualifications of the author. My undergraduate degree, for example, is a Bachelor of Arts; it happens to be in a combination of medical sciences and computer science.
Jeremy
-
"I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me"
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SEY91kB2GIIJ:https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
... a student accusing me not of saying something too ideologically extreme — be it communism or racism or whatever — but of not being sensitive enough toward his feelings, of some simple act of indelicacy that's considered tantamount to physical assault... "Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated." Hurting a student's feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble.
Commentators on the left and right have recently criticized the sensitivity and paranoia of today's college students. They worry about the stifling of free speech, the implementation of unenforceable conduct codes, and a general hostility against opinions and viewpoints that could cause students so much as a hint of discomfort.
... adoption of a totalizing, simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice. The simplicity and absolutism of this conception has combined with the precarity of academic jobs to create higher ed's current climate of fear, a heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity in which safety and comfort have become the ends and the means of the college experience.
-
The article does not coincide with my own experience.
Free speech is a basic human right as is equality of opportunity: but we have further to travel on equality than we do on free speech. There is also a need to remember that today's conservative would probably have been viewed as a dangerous radical 100 years ago. Also bear in mind that people who appear very left wing in certain parts of the world may well be regarded as quite centrist elsewhere ( ie in Europe).
Progress is good (as is conservation). We need to make sure that our progressive or conservative impulses are not founded in self interest, but rather in fairness. I am content for my great great grandchildren to look back at my generation and think how narrow and conservative we were although we thought ourselves to be socially minded and progressive.
-
I went on to say, "of course, it's fine to have views and express them without specific qualification or even experience". But the author himself is the one who suggested that progressives lack the conservatives "deeper grasp of the world's complexity" - you'll note I put that in quotes. My comment was specifically addressing the unreasonable assertion of the author by presenting a valid reason why they would most likely not be a position to possess that very quality in great degrees. I went on with evidence and commentary, but you've dismissed it out of hand and out of context. That's somewhat ironic, no?
I'm far from elitist and very much normal and I'm pretty middle of the road overall, but generally would be considered fiscally conservative and socially progressive, but not much in either direction. On specific issues or topics, of course, that can and does vary. The point, though, is that I'm hardly what you would label as a liberal/progressive overall.
This author, a young Uni student in Queensland, seems very well spoken (written) and intelligent and I have no doubt he is. But he's hardly in a position to suggest to anyone else that they don't have a deeper grasp of the world's complexity given his distinct lack of experience, at least to the point where others are holding his point up as authoritative. Even more so given the article provides nothing more than a couple of anecdotes in support of its argument.
And, yes, the Wright brothers figured out flight. Despite your claim, the vast majority of such advances are the exception, rather than the norm, and are typically the result of a specific field of invention rather than an overall doctrine or philosophy which typically take more time and experience to develop by their very nature. Again, I conceded immediately that anyone can have a view and they could make valid points, but this article was just hot air, personal anecdote, and a heap of confirmation bias. Given that the site in question is normally quite factual and only moderately right sided (as opposed to being extreme, an issue I discussed in my post), it was disappointing to find what really amounts to a right-wing puff piece.
Given I did raise many more points than just this, would you care to comment on them or will you leave it with an incorrect assertion of ad hominem on my part?
I wrote a rather quick response and decided to delete it and write something a little more thought out.
In regards to what is now in bold, I never made the claim all, or even suggested the majority of, discoveries came from those without advanced degrees. I was merely providing a counter example to your ad hominem attack on the author which you suggested that since he did not have experience nor advanced degrees, his argument is less valid.
In logic and reason, you only need provide one counter example to disprove a statement. I provided my example, disproving your statement.
Furthermore, your first paragraph in your original statement was an ad hominem argument. Instead of beginning by providing counter arguments to the article, you brought up a specific quality of the author to use against the argument, which is an ad hominem attack by definition. Yours may lack the audacity of calling someone a racist or something else as offensive, but it still is an ad hominem argument. And with this response, it appears you are doubling down on it.
Now, you may have provided legitimate counters to the article afterwards, but you kind of destroyed the credibility of those counters since you started off with a fallacy.
Insofar as me providing reasons as to why I may agree with the article or your counters, I did not read the article. To be honest, I could care less one way or the other, I was just pointing out the fallacy of your first paragraph.
In English we have a proverb that "wisdom comes with age." It doesn't. The Germans more correctly say that "we gain intelligence from our successes and wisdom from our failures ...", and I like to add, "but only if we choose to learn from them." Although experience may have a lot to do with wisdom, it does not necessarily mean you gain any, especially if you choose to ignore your failures.
-
Be wary of criticising an article because of the supposed qualifications of the author. My undergraduate degree, for example, is a Bachelor of Arts; it happens to be in a combination of medical sciences and computer science.
But that's not all I did, was it? I detailed many areas. The particular author, is part way through a BA unrelated to the discussion he introduced. As I said, he speaks (writes) well, but the content is not there. He (the author) made claims about deeper understanding, so it's appropriate to check the basis upon which he might have said depth of knowledge or understanding. It was a sorely lacking return.
That, in and of itself, doesn't make him wrong and I didn't claim that. As a rebuttal of his claim, it was valid to check his experience and comment on it, among other things. Interestingly, he has accepted various criticisms of the article well, and should be commended for that and hopefully will improve as he continues to write (which he has said he intends to do).
-
Quite simply, Joe, it wasn't an ad hominem. The author claimed special knowledge (a deeper understanding), so checking the basis of that claim, among other points, is entirely valid and reasonable. It's not attacking him as a person - it's disputing his claim of depth of knowledge based on the available facts of his experience and expertise.
An ad hominem would have been "he's a right winger and therefore is wrong". Instead, what I essentially said was, "he claims to have a depth of knowledge but checking his credentials doesn't support that claim, so that's not a good start to the basis of the article". Then I went on to discuss other factors as to why I thought he article was lacking whilst specifically acknowledging that he's entitled to any view he wants.
If he hadn't claimed to be part of a group with special knowledge it wouldn't have been relevant.
-
A whole raft of brilliant philosophers and Nobel Prize-winning economists lean to the right. The problem is that these people tend to go into business or enter academic fields like engineering, economics, and mathematics. They have therefore surrendered the humanities and what philosopher Roger Scruton has called the ‘fake fields’ of gender and ethnic studies to their political opponents on the Left, who relish their role as the unchallenged shapers of student minds. According to a 2005 survey3 conducted in the United States, there was only one Republican sociology professor in the humanities for every 40 Democrat professors...
... arguments made by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate. Both Sowell and Pinker contend that conservatives see an unfortunate world of moral trade-offs in which every moral judgment comes with costs that must be properly balanced. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be blind to, or in denial about, these trade-offs, whether economic and social; theirs is a utopian or unconstrained vision, in which every moral grievance must be immediately extinguished until we have perfected society. This is why conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility.
-
One might phrase it slightly differently, stating that the progressive believes that injustice needs to be challenged, and that the world of tomorrow should be better than today, while conservatives knowledge of what correcting injustices will cost them personally makes them want the world of tomorrow to be the same as today (or maybe even rolled back 20 years).
While a progressive might be angry at an injustice, there are plenty of conservatives who manage to get angry over proposed gun controls or proposals to reduce pollution; people will always find it easier to justify anger when it is more closely aligned to their own views - I think this is why the author of the article finds those to the left of him to be more vehement..
-
^^ This. And it works both ways, of course.
It's ironic that I was accused of ad hominem attacks when the original article was nothing more than "the other side are all mentally challenged".
-
"I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me"
As long as there are professors fired from certain universities for teaching evolution I believe there are multiple sides to this story. It's not only certain liberals/left who are systematically intolerant of a different opinion from their own.
-
Earlier in this thread, someone wrote about equality of opportunity being a right.
Yes, theoretically correct, but really?
Of course not. Opportunity stems as much from your geography as your parentage, education or anything else.
To anybody more directly connected with photography than is the usual amateur, it soon becomes obvious that opportunity, at least in photography, comes your way on entirely different a boat. It comes from where you live, how much capital you have, how good you are at what you do, and how much you are prepared to pay to get to your goal. You always have to pay, not necessarily in cash, but in the trade-offs that you have to make. Do you go to the right pubs? Are you of the correct religious persuasion? Do you have a good golf handicap? Can you charm the pants off Mr Big's secretary and get an appointment?
In other words, equal opportunity is bullshit. You can only be you, in whichever situation you pop into this world and with whatever kind of head that God gave you.
If there is at least one massive fault that I find within the world of today's young, it is that goddam sense of entitlement. Nobody owes you squat. Try six months of being a freelance at anything, and that kind of nonsense is forever driven from your head.
As with the old saw: if you do not lean to the left as a youth, there is perhaps something wrong with you; if you lean to the left in your forties, then you know there is something wrong with you.
However, today, left and right appear to have lost much of their earlier meaning and, where not interchangeable, verge on the extremes.
I do worry about the world my two grandkids are going to face if they reach my score.
-
Earlier in this thread, someone wrote about equality of opportunity being a right.
Yes, theoretically correct, but really?
That would have been me... but the actual line was "Free speech is a basic human right as is equality of opportunity: but we have further to travel on equality than we do on free speech. " - which is kind of an acknowledgement that true free speech and equality of opportunity are not here: they may never be, but that is not excuse for not wanting (and working) to make things better.
I don't share your view of today's young people: they seem more sensible than in my day and have a better attitude towards people who are different... and I think we do owe the young something - we need to be sure that we pass them on a world that is better than the one we were handed, rather than saving up problem for them to solve... and this is quite apart from the consideration that these are the people who will be in charge of everything when we are in our dotage.. we owe them and we owe our seniors and vice-versa.
-
"[The conservative's] deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility."
The entire post is a gaggle of claptrappery but this one quote made me snort my wheatabix out my nose. Slobodan, shouldn't you have posted this in the A Touch of Humor thread?
-
As with the old saw: if you do not lean to the left as a youth, there is perhaps something wrong with you; if you lean to the left in your forties, then you know there is something wrong with you.
Or as Churchill is supposed to have put it: "If you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 35, you have no brain," or words to that effect. And of course that's quite true. We see evidence of its truth all around us; even, believe it or not, here on LuLa. Most often in The Coffee Corner.
But there's another component that enters into "opportunity." It's called entrepreneurship, and it's almost wholly genetic. I think of people like Henry Ford, Bill Gates, plus a host of others who've created opportunity out of whole cloth. Bottom line, if, by "opportunity" you mean the ability to advance in life, it's never going to be a "right" and it's never going to be "equal."
-
Earlier in this thread, someone wrote about equality of opportunity being a right.
Yes, theoretically correct, but really?
Of course not. Opportunity stems as much from your geography as your parentage, education or anything else.
Rob, I think rather than accepting the status quo it's better to strive for more equal opportunity, even though the starting point is different. (btw, education and anything else are in my mind all a concequence of geography and parentage, and not independent variables).
Also I don't see what you are describing about the "sense of entitlement" of the younger generation. Around me they work hard and expect little else then a fair reward for their efforts. They have clearly figured out that with the "right" to equal opportunity comes the "duty" of equal and hard work. It's probably that second "duty" part that the youngsters you are referring to might have forgotten.
-
That would have been me... but the actual line was "Free speech is a basic human right as is equality of opportunity: but we have further to travel on equality than we do on free speech. " - which is kind of an acknowledgement that true free speech and equality of opportunity are not here: they may never be, but that is not excuse for not wanting (and working) to make things better.
I don't share your view of today's young people: they seem more sensible than in my day and have a better attitude towards people who are different... and I think we do owe the young something - we need to be sure that we pass them on a world that is better than the one we were handed, rather than saving up problem for them to solve... and this is quite apart from the consideration that these are the people who will be in charge of everything when we are in our dotage.. we owe them and we owe our seniors and vice-versa.
I do think one factor has vanished: in my day, one did as one was told, mostly on the assumption that the older generation knew more than did we, the inexperienced younger; the sense of respect towards parents was usually still alive, for better or worse, as was the notion of not arguing with them.
I shall never forget the day when my daughter moved from primary school into secondary. She came home to tell us that the teacher had started the session by declaring: "I suppose I had better tell you about your rights." Can anyone imagine a more destructive teacher/student relationship? How on Earth was that teacher ever going to keep a class under control, expect to exercise any authority?
As for the world we may hand on: I think many of us have a hard enough time just making family ends meet. That kind of thinking should be in the safe hands of the politicians whose job, it might be seen to be, is to ensure the world is a happy place. Naïve, or what?
Yes, one should indeed work as best one can to improve the quality of life, but pretending that impossible targets are not met only because somebody else is "privileged" is a false pretence. The reason all are not living in that big house at the top of the hill derives as much from the fact that there is space up there on the top of that metaphorical hill for but one big house, as much as the fact that all of us are not equally psychologically endowed by nature to get a big house anywhere.
But then, only in "dotage" and with a clear rear-view mirror untrammelled by swinging footballs and/or saints, can one realise that one's own mistakes and shortcomings have led one to the position one presently occupies, just as much as can the über-successful see the other side of that picture and afford themselves the friendly pat on the back (regardless of what Schewe thinks of the dangers in such pats).
-
It is unsurprising that academics, at least the lazy ones, would arrive at the conclusion that the left tends to the irrational and the shrill, whereas the right does not.
After all, it is on college campuses where we find the shrill, irrational, fringe of the left ascendant. If you look no further than a few yards from your office, you will find centrists of all stripes being shouted down by left wing fringe elements. You might, if you were either a dimwit or a right-leaning libertarian troll, put this wildly narrow world view forward as some universal truth.
If you look a little further, you will find that you're simply not seeing the right wing fringe. They're around, just not on college campuses. They prefer internet forums and their own network of wild-eyed foaming web sites. You'll find them on internet forums belittling everyone who disgrees with them, insulting the other side (and in forums where they are not yet in control, they will do it carefully, smearing "generalized groups" rather than individuals, and avoiding the use of a little list of words that have been ruled out by the impotent and naive moderators).
What you will not find anywhere, be it college campuses or internet forums, be it left or right, is fringees having actual discourse. Nope. They will simply state their positions over and over as if they were obvious truths, often claiming exactly that; they will attack whatever and whomever they perceive as the opposition by whatever means necessary, while painting the whole thing as a free exchange of ideas. Then, when the wheels fall off and people have had enough of the thinly veiled insults, the barely translucent instigation, they will spring back in horror, declaring that this was Never Ever What They Wanted. And then they'll do it again. And again. And again.
The name of the game on both sides is to smash the discourse, shout down the centrists, and destroy any attempts at reasoned debate.
-
There's a lot of truth in what you're saying, Andrew, but one thing you failed to point out is that though there are plenty of people on the right-wing fringe, not only are they not on college campuses, they're not teaching college kids. The left-wing college monopoly won't let even reasonable, rational conservatives on the campuses to teach. There are a few reasonable folks left over from back in the day who understand how the world works, people like Walter Williams, but what's happening on campuses often is indoctrination, not teaching. The result could, in time, mean the end of the United States, and of the free world.
The biggest takeaway from a study by research firm YouGov and Washington, D.C.-based Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which surveyed over 2,000 people regarding their views on socialism and the communist political system was that one out of every two millennials surveyed said they would rather live in a socialist or communist country over a capitalist democracy like the U.S.
In other words, these kids aren't being introduced to even simple illustrations of the disastrous nature of socialism, illustrations like the history of the Plymouth Colony. I'd also guess their professors don't mention Venezuela or any of the other socialist basket-cases around the world.
You're right. We do need reasoned debate, but we're not going to get it any time soon.
-
And certainly not in parts of Britain, where invited speakers are sometimes not even allowed entrance to the hallowed halls, never mind open their mouth to speak.
But as ever, it's down to the scourge of youth: powerfull inexperience of what really makes this world go round. And coinciding beautifully with China slipping easily into another period of lifelong dictatorship...
On the other hand, maybe the kids are right: force, bloody force.
-
As long as there are professors fired from certain universities for teaching evolution I believe there are multiple sides to this story. It's not only certain liberals/left who are systematically intolerant of a different opinion from their own.
Where, exactly, is this happening, Pieter? And. . . how long ago?
-
See here for one example (https://www.thedailybeast.com/creationists-take-down-another-top-professor). Google is your friend finding several others.
-
Ah yes! The Daily Beast. That settles it. Must be true. 8)
-
Ah yes! The Daily Beast. That settles it. Must be true. 8)
I love it when people can only attack the source, it means they lost the argument ;)
Btw, you're completely missing the point of why I posted my original remark. It's not that some of the things that are covered in the article Slobodan linked aren't true, it's the conclusion that hostile silencing of different opponents is the perogative of the liberal left. In my mind it isn't, the conservative right is just as good at it. It's mostly a "pot and kettle" type argument that leads nowhere and stifles true debate.
-
An ad hominem would have been "he's a right winger and therefore is wrong". Instead, what I essentially said was, "he claims to have a depth of knowledge but checking his credentials doesn't support that claim, so that's not a good start to the basis of the article". Then I went on to discuss other factors as to why I thought he article was lacking whilst specifically acknowledging that he's entitled to any view he wants.
If he hadn't claimed to be part of a group with special knowledge it wouldn't have been relevant.
I still don't buy this. You could have explained where in his thoughts he lacks depth and then shown what was lacking. However, just because someone lacks degrees does not imply his thoughts will lack depth, which is what you started off with. You attacked the author, not his ideas, initially, and that is ad hominem.
You should have just shown where the lack of depth was and left the personal attributes of the author alone.
I can tell you as someone with degrees in Mathematics, and therefore had to study logic, your initial paragraph would have been considered erroneous. It would be like me criticizing the first person to prove a theorem because it was not the most elegant solution currently known and ask to have the theorem renamed after the person who later came up with the more elegant proof.
-
I still don't buy this. You could have explained where in his thoughts he lacks depth and then shown what was lacking. However, just because someone lacks degrees does not imply his thoughts will lack depth, which is what you started off with. You attacked the author, not his ideas, initially, and that is ad hominem.
Only if you ignore the entire rest of my post that discussed the problems. You can keep cherry picking and sniping and you'll be able to make all sorts of claims, but they will won't be true.
-
Equal Opportunity: All this means is that, given the same situation, two people will not be treated differently due to characteristics which have no objective bearing on their ability to do something. Equal opportunity is not about being equal nor about making people equal or providing special opportunities to some groups. It's about removing subjective bias.
-
As long as there are professors fired from certain universities for teaching evolution I believe there are multiple sides to this story. It's not only certain liberals/left who are systematically intolerant of a different opinion from their own.
Does this really happen still. It blows my mind when someone does not believe in evolution.
-
In a literally 5 seconds' worth of Googling:
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/may-25-1925-tennessee-teacher-is-indicted-for-evolution-lessons/
2012, so not very recent, but recent enough to make the point, I think.
-
In a literally 5 seconds' worth of Googling:
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/may-25-1925-tennessee-teacher-is-indicted-for-evolution-lessons/
2012, so not very recent, but recent enough to make the point, I think.
The *article* is from 2012. It references the 1925 incident ;) More likely today than firing a teacher for teaching evolution is the goofy tendency to elevate creationism as an equally valid subject for scientific study: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/316487-new-wave-of-anti-evolution-bills-hit-states
-
The article I linked to is a case from 2015. You can attack the source but I haven't seen the facts debunked.
-
One might phrase it slightly differently, stating that the progressive believes that injustice needs to be challenged, and that the world of tomorrow should be better than today, while conservatives knowledge of what correcting injustices will cost them personally makes them want the world of tomorrow to be the same as today (or maybe even rolled back 20 years).
While a progressive might be angry at an injustice, there are plenty of conservatives who manage to get angry over proposed gun controls or proposals to reduce pollution; people will always find it easier to justify anger when it is more closely aligned to their own views - I think this is why the author of the article finds those to the left of him to be more vehement..
I think this statement is a little too biased. I could easily come up with some weird theory about liberals by looking at the fact that many anti-vaxers are liberal.
The fact is conservatives want small government with self-responsibility whereas liberals want big government with shared responsibilities.
On top of this, many, on both sides, have the false economic idea that in order for someone to be rich, others need to be poor. This has never been proven nor is there any evidence to this theory, and certainly adds to the overall idea that government needs to be more involved in redistributing wealth.
-
I love it when people can only attack the source, it means they lost the argument ;)
Btw, you're completely missing the point of why I posted my original remark. It's not that some of the things that are covered in the article Slobodan linked aren't true, it's the conclusion that hostile silencing of different opponents is the perogative of the liberal left. In my mind it isn't, the conservative right is just as good at it. It's mostly a "pot and kettle" type argument that leads nowhere and stifles true debate.
In fact, the whole thing smacks of hysteria, in a way. Indications are (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data) that today's young people - despite being subject to "liberal indoctrination" - are actually more tolerant than in decades past, anecdotal ranting notwithstanding. And that extreme liberals are more tolerant than extreme conservatives. (And that extremes on BOTH sides seem to be nominally more tolerant than moderates.) There's an interesting sidenote, in that speech judged to be racist is actually less tolerated in contrast to the overall rise in tolerance, but there's a further sidenote to THAT in that a great deal of this specific intolerance seems to be directed at Muslim speakers who are giving a potentially anti-American message.
Further, if you look at actual data (https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/) you'll see that even on campus, attempts to "shout down" or deny a platform to speakers judged "offensive" don't conform to ideological boundaries, though I will concede that in the last two years, the balance has been significantly different, apparently due to repeated attempts to make noted instigator Milo Yiannopolis go away. ;)
-
The article I linked to is a case from 2015. You can attack the source but I haven't seen the facts debunked.
I wasn't referring to your link. Of course, you may not be responding to me here ;)
-
Of course, you may not be responding to me here ;)
Indeed. I wasn't responding to you :)
-
Well, take heart, Russ. The radical fringe lefties (the so-called SJWs) may be loud on campus, and they may have out of proportion impacts in certain areas, but I think the kids are basically OK.
This is just one story, so don't consider it to be conclusive.
I live in the Pacific Northwest, in a historically hippie community which is also a college town. I live between two rentals, one of which houses 5 kids, one houses 7.
1. I go to more protests than any of them do.
2. The politically active boys who lived south of me a few years ago were doing ordinary
campaign work, for the 2016 election, not weird fringe stuff. They knocked on doors
for Bernie, as, frankly, I would expect almost any 20 year old to have done in 2016.
3. As far as I can tell, they think that, for example, the big kerfuffle at Evergreen (google it, but
it's standard SJW "THAT PROFESSOR NEEDS TO DIE IN A FIRE!" fare) was pretty much worthy of
eye-rolling. Mild eye-rolling, to be sure. They don't want the fringees to die in a fire either.
Mostly the kids who live around me, both next door and around the neighborhood, seem to be ordinary college kids, focused on drinking beer, smoking a little weed, and studying enough to finish their degrees and get on with life.
Same as it ever was.
So, yeah, there's some shouty activists up at the school, and they control the student newspaper to a degree, and they yell about this and that. But the majority isn't really listening, and the overall impression is that they're just acting out, experimenting with activism, perhaps with being gay, or being artists, and soon enough they'll be letting their hair grow out to its natural color, going to law school, and heading to New York to get on with the important work of liberating the proles from their money.
-
I love it when people can only attack the source, it means they lost the argument ;)
Btw, you're completely missing the point of why I posted my original remark. It's not that some of the things that are covered in the article Slobodan linked aren't true, it's the conclusion that hostile silencing of different opponents is the perogative of the liberal left. In my mind it isn't, the conservative right is just as good at it. It's mostly a "pot and kettle" type argument that leads nowhere and stifles true debate.
Sorry, Pieter, but the Daily Beast is so far off on the left it's practically out of sight. Yes, you're right. This kind of thing still happens, but it happens so rarely that an outfit like the Daily Beast has practically to beat itself to death finding an example. Yes, there are others, but damn few.
On the other hand, the instances of universities, especially faculties, rejecting conservative professors and speakers are legion. If you want to google something, google "Ben Shapiro's attempts to speak at universities." You'll run into things like "Berkeley Ben Shapiro speech: Protesters gather. . ," "Ben Shapiro's University of Minnesota speech inspires ire. . ." I could go on and on. If you look at the things Shapiro says in these addresses you'll see this reaction is grossly overdone. It's a case of kids and their handlers saying "Shut up. Don't say that. I don't want to hear it." And these are universities? Supposed places of learning? Sure! You betcha!
Another thing you might want to google is Charles A. Murray, author of "The Bell Curve." When he tried to speak at my own damn alma mater, University of Michigan, various student groups threatened to shut down the event if the faculty failed to do so. Harvard students protested Murray's speech, etc., etc., etc. I dare you to read "The Bell Curve." What you'll find is a lifetime of research and an argument based on reason. You may disagree with the argument, but if you do you'd better be pretty damn specific about the hole you find in his reasoning, and the protesters aren't even interested in that kind of logical hole.
I could go on and on with this crap. Shapiro and Murray are just the tip of the iceberg. The universities have been taken over by the left, and the kids there have been taught -- by the faculty and by faint-hearted university officers that they shouldn't listen to anything that makes them uncomfortable. Then they're taught which things ought to make them uncomfortable. As far as I'm concerned it's time to shut down all the universities and start over.
Yes, there are a few very unreasonable people on the far right, but there's a mob of them on the left. I use the term "mob" advisedly. I mean exactly that. It's a mob! and it's going to destroy the things that make the world work. Look at the violence. It's almost always from the left. You can find instances on the right, but you've got to knock yourself out trying to find them. To find violence on the left, all you have to do is open your newspaper.
-
Yes, there are a few very unreasonable people on the far right, but there's a mob of them on the left. I use the term "mob" advisedly. I mean exactly that. It's a mob! and it's going to destroy the things that make the world work. Look at the violence. It's almost always from the left. You can find instances on the right, but you've got to knock yourself out trying to find them. To find violence on the left, all you have to do is open your newspaper.
The only thing I'd respond that there is plenty of violence on the right as well, it's not a matter of more or less, we can quibble about that until the cows come home to no effect. The key is we need to condemn both. Anything that stifles an open debate (and that includes the crazy students that prevented C.A. Murray to speak, but also right wing nutters that prevent other people that they differ with from free speech) is far off base as far as I'm concerned.
-
C'mon, Pieter, give me some examples of this right-wing violence. I gave you a couple on the left. All you've been able to do is say that there's violence on the right. Sure there is, but compared with what's coming from the left, it's miniscule. I could spend all day listing examples on the left. I don't know where you get your information, but I'd be willing to bet it's mostly from the tube.
-
LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Right+wing+violence)
-
Equal Opportunity: All this means is that, given the same situation, two people will not be treated differently due to characteristics which have no objective bearing on their ability to do something. Equal opportunity is not about being equal nor about making people equal or providing special opportunities to some groups. It's about removing subjective bias.
By your definition, then I think it should be renamed something else. That might stop it (the phrase) being bandied about with such enthusiasm.
I can't help wondering how you would cope with the situation where two equally qualified people apply for the same job. Create two, equal jobs rather than disappoint one applicant?
Perhaps that was the dilemma Harvey W. was doing his best to resolve the cheapest way he knew how... clearly, a false economy: shoulda just made more pictures and given 'em all roles to play. Bet he wishes he'd thought of that!
:-)
-
Pieter, the thing is, statistically speaking, there's just not that much actual violence on either side, but the right wing media specializes in triggering the fear response (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes) of their sympathetic readers. The end result is that well-meaning folks like Russ see the imminent end of civilization as we know it because a few idiot kids fail to see the hyperbole and fear mongering of the Milos and Shapiros and Coulters for what they are. What we DO see, however, is an uptick in verbal assault and confrontation. I don't have stats at hand, but again, I suspect that the rise of "hate speech" is happening on both left and right.
Still, look at the stats I linked to above. As Andrew points out far more eloquently than I ever could, "the kids ARE alright."
-
Pieter, the thing is, statistically speaking, there's just not that much actual violence on either side, but the right wing media specializes in triggering the fear response (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes) of their sympathetic readers.
Couldn't agree more, it just feels a lot because that's what the media (on both sides) focus on. The reasonable non-violent majority in the middle is not newsworthy and gets little attention. And I also believe that violence is actually quite balanced between extreme left and right.
-
Yes, there are a few very unreasonable people on the far right, ...
Are you serious with this statement?
I have no patience with university students/faculty who try to prevent a conservative from speaking. But as for "reasonable" far right people, I can only offer this partial list:
Believe that Clinton ran a teen sex ring from a DC pizzeria. All conservative.
Believe that women are inferior to men and should stay at home. All conservative.
Believe that human-influenced climate change is a hoax. All conservative.
Espouse traditional “Christian family oriented values” yet voted for Trump the liar, cheat, and molester. All conservatives.
Believe that blacks and other dark-skinned people should be suppressed and segregated. All conservative.
Believe that creationism is true. All conservative.
Believe that Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh etc. are accurate sources of information. All conservative.
Believe that immigrants commit more crimes than people born here. All conservative.
Reasonable?
-
I disagree, pieter, the SJWs shout a lot and from time to time get someone fired, whereas the right-wing fringe shouts a lot and from time to time shoots a whole pile of people or drives a car through a a crowd.
Yes, yes, I know. THOSE guys aren't right wing zealots, they're crazy people and you disavow them completely, but you're going to insist that I cannot just the same disavow the SJWs, whatever. Don't even bother.
ETA: Yes, this is a historical accident caused by the fact that, at the moment, lefties are on a bit of an anti-violence kick. Doesn't make it false.
-
Yes, yes, I know. THOSE guys aren't right wing zealots, they're crazy people and you disavow them completely, but you're going to insist that I cannot just the same disavow the SJWs, whatever.
Precisely this.
-
I disagree, pieter, the SJWs shout a lot and from time to time get someone fired, whereas the right-wing fringe shouts a lot and from time to time shoots a whole pile of people or drives a car through a a crowd.
The left has had their share of deadly violence as well, haven't seen any real data that one side is significantly better than the other (other than in their own Echo chambers)
-
The *article* is from 2012. It references the 1925 incident ;) More likely today than firing a teacher for teaching evolution is the goofy tendency to elevate creationism as an equally valid subject for scientific study: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/316487-new-wave-of-anti-evolution-bills-hit-states
You're quite right, James. The issue, though, is alive and well which is why the article was written. Your example is better.
-
Fair enough, pieter. It's likely regional as well as temporal.
If you stretch back even a few decades the left-wing terrorists develop a pretty impressive body count, and it's entirely possible that in Europe they're far more violent than in the USA even today. Honestly, our media does not do a good job of explaining who's on what side. I don't know, offhand, where to place, say, Basque separatists.
Here in the USA the left wing maniacs are mainly trying to police speech and get people fired, at the moment.
ETA: The fact remains, though, that there are those who would simply disavow their own fringe elements, of whatever sort, but insist that the other side claim theirs, and then declare "You're a bunch of weird fringees, not reasonable centrists like us" which is completely disingenuous.
-
...
Believe that Clinton ran a teen sex ring from a DC pizzeria. All conservative.
Believe that women are inferior to men and should stay at home. All conservative.
Believe that human-influenced climate change is a hoax. All conservative.
Espouse traditional “Christian family oriented values” yet voted for Trump the liar, cheat, and molester. All conservatives.
Believe that blacks and other dark-skinned people should be suppressed and segregated. All conservative.
Believe that creationism is true. All conservative.
Believe that Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh etc. are accurate sources of information. All conservative.
Believe that immigrants commit more crimes than people born here. All conservative.
...
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/04/bayonet%204.jpg)
-
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/04/bayonet%204.jpg)
Couldn't find a pic for whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) so you just threw up a straw man instead, eh? ;)
(He's got a point though, considering your whole original post was basically "the left does this, but the right doesn't." So once one acknowledges that yes, there are some shrill babies on the left, then what? Assuming that's meant to be a condemnation of some unique trait of lefties, then pointing out that it's a *human* condition, not a leftie one, seems reasonable, no?)
-
Right on cue. Accusations of "strawman!" so that we can start arguing about the argument. Yawn. Have we already had "ad hominem!" "no, that's not an ad hominem" "well, here's what wikipedia says!" or was that another thread?
Arguing about the argument is a brilliant rhetorical strategy intended to draw the discussion away from the actual point, so that the original assertion can stand there as unchallenged as possible while people argue over details that have nothing to do with it. By letting the assertion stand with as little actual challenge as possible, you make it appear stronger than it actually is.
The proper thing to do is to ignore the attempts to lead things astray and to knock over the assertion. Repeatedly, if necessary.
Like this, for instance:
The original article, quotes a tweet (what an absurdity THAT habit is) in which Michael Shermer is clearly comparing a radical fringe "far left SJWs" with centrists of all stripes (the phrase "far right" appears nowhere in the tweet) and then willfully misreads it. Articles that quote tweets are, almost invariably, terrible, and I simply assume that they're all wrong and move on the moment I spot the first embedded tweet. You can find a tweet that says literally anything, and if you can't, you can knock up a twitter account and MAKE one in a few minutes. Quoting tweets is the opposite of scholarship.
Also, this insane habit of embedding them rather than just retyping the content inline is bizarre. Are you hoping to lend "weight" to your piece by linking directly to "the source"? That's simply idiotic, and it makes your stupid essay load even more slowly and use screen space even less efficiently than it might have. Ugh.
Matthew Blackwell is not illustrating anything here that resembles scholarship or even cognition. While he may be capable of one, or even both, he has not elected to share either with us today.
-
Or This:
The piece quoted originally is manifestly a circular argument, taking this structure:
"I and some other people have spoken to some leftists noted for their closed-mindedness, as well as some other people selected more or less at random. Our conclusion is that leftists are closed minded."
Which is logically identical "I weighed some very heavy rocks, and a few other items around the house, and concluded the rocks are heavier than anything else"
The conclusion is planted in the setup, making it a circular argument. Which is irrelevant anyways, because we need not look far to find closed minded people on either side of the debate. Anyone with any actual experience in the world has no trouble whatsoever proving the conclusion false, and therefore we need not even examine the argument, we know that the argument must be flawed because it produced a conclusion that is trivially proved false.
One cannot help but wonder why anyone would bother to quote such a silly piece here, or anywhere else.
-
I will say that, in general, right wing fringees in the USA, while not open minded, are open-skulled. They generally conclude their statements by blowing their own brains out, after all.
-
... One cannot help but wonder why anyone would bother to quote such a silly piece here, or anywhere else.
In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, “I have no idea why you would believe that. You’re probably a racist.”
-
Your ability to find rhymes and cadences is noted, DJ Slobodan, I look forward to your upcoming rap album!
-
Right on cue. Accusations of "strawman!" so that we can start arguing about the argument. Yawn. Have we already had "ad hominem!" "no, that's not an ad hominem" "well, here's what wikipedia says!" or was that another thread?
Arguing about the argument is a brilliant rhetorical strategy intended to draw the discussion away from the actual point, so that the original assertion can stand there as unchallenged as possible while people argue over details that have nothing to do with it. By letting the assertion stand with as little actual challenge as possible, you make it appear stronger than it actually is.
The proper thing to do is to ignore the attempts to lead things astray and to knock over the assertion. Repeatedly, if necessary.
Like this, for instance:
The original article, quotes a tweet (what an absurdity THAT habit is) in which Michael Shermer is clearly comparing a radical fringe "far left SJWs" with centrists of all stripes (the phrase "far right" appears nowhere in the tweet) and then willfully misreads it. Articles that quote tweets are, almost invariably, terrible, and I simply assume that they're all wrong and move on the moment I spot the first embedded tweet. You can find a tweet that says literally anything, and if you can't, you can knock up a twitter account and MAKE one in a few minutes. Quoting tweets is the opposite of scholarship.
Also, this insane habit of embedding them rather than just retyping the content inline is bizarre. Are you hoping to lend "weight" to your piece by linking directly to "the source"? That's simply idiotic, and it makes your stupid essay load even more slowly and use screen space even less efficiently than it might have. Ugh.
Matthew Blackwell is not illustrating anything here that resembles scholarship or even cognition. While he may be capable of one, or even both, he has not elected to share either with us today.
This makes no sense and is something that a confidence man would portray. The fact is that straw man and ad hominem arguments, along with plenty of others, are fallacies. They should be called out so people know how to spot them and ignore them.
Now my intention had nothing to do with trying to make the original argument stronger. I stated I did not care. I also have no idea whether or not what Slobo was pointing to was a straw man since I have yet to really read it.
But, as a whole, people tend to be pretty easy to fool sometimes, and your desire to have people ignore whether or not an argument is valid only makes that problems worse.
-
Or This:
The piece quoted originally is manifestly a circular argument, taking this structure:
"I and some other people have spoken to some leftists noted for their closed-mindedness, as well as some other people selected more or less at random. Our conclusion is that leftists are closed minded."
Which is logically identical "I weighed some very heavy rocks, and a few other items around the house, and concluded the rocks are heavier than anything else"
The conclusion is planted in the setup, making it a circular argument. Which is irrelevant anyways, because we need not look far to find closed minded people on either side of the debate. Anyone with any actual experience in the world has no trouble whatsoever proving the conclusion false, and therefore we need not even examine the argument, we know that the argument must be flawed because it produced a conclusion that is trivially proved false.
One cannot help but wonder why anyone would bother to quote such a silly piece here, or anywhere else.
So, it is fine for you to point out a fallacy, arguing about the argument, but not others?
-
As a former mathematician I can tell you exactly how these things go.
Someone proposes a theorem. in order to test the theorem, do we first check the proof line by line?
No. We do not. We first see if the conclusion makes sense. Then we try to break the conclusion. You can try to prove
the negation of it, or you can try to find a counter-example. If you can do either of those, then you don't need to check
the argument, you know it's wrong. Checking the argument becomes the original mathematician's problem.
The fact is that the conclusion in the original piece is completely silly. We don't even have to examine the argument,
except for fun (which, if you pay attention, I did, not only is the conclusion silly but the argument itself is absurd
and obviously so).
If you can't knock down the conclusion, they you check the argument. If you find a weak point in the argument, then you
head back to the previous step with new information about what counter-examples and counter-proofs might look like.
The trouble with argument-checking is that you end up in an endless regress of argument-patching and, in the case of political
discussions, meta-arguments about what a strawman is and so on, distracting (deliberately, natch) from the original. It's much
much stronger to show that the conclusion is simply false, because then there's no patching the argument and we don't have to
spend a long boring interval talking about meta-arguments.
-
Anyone can point out the fallacies, but we should not be distracted by them, and we ought to focus on
working out whether or not the conclusions are true first. Anyways, Slobodan wasn't even pointing out a fallacy,
he was simply saying "strawman" to divert the conversation away from his original, discredited, post.
-
LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Right+wing+violence)
Pieter, I can come up with a list much longer than that one, with sources one actually can believe -- the WSJ for instance -- on the other side of the question. But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. So we're both wasting our time indulging in this absurd discussion.
I'm outta here.
-
Anyone can point out the fallacies, but we should not be distracted by them, and we ought to focus on
working out whether or not the conclusions are true first. Anyways, Slobodan wasn't even pointing out a fallacy,
he was simply saying "strawman" to divert the conversation away from his original, discredited, post.
First, considering how easy it was to point what you feel Slobodan did, I can't help but think that you wasted a lot more time in telling us why we should ignore arguing on arguing for the sake of saving time.
Second, regardless if the conclusion is true, arguments need to be sound. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. A prosecutor would be in a lot of trouble if he could not put together a sound argument regardless if the defendant was guilty.
(I hate autocorrect!)
-
You're missing the point.
If the conclusion is true and you want to be believed, you should have a convincing argument. Sure.
If the conclusion, however, is false, and demonstrably so, we need not even glance at the argument
to know that it is a bad argument.
So, faced with an argument and a conclusion, about which we know nothing, we should first test the conclusion.
If it be false, we are done, except for amusement or curiosity. Unless we MADE the argument, in which case
we probably have a personal interest in addition to curiosity.
-
A parable.
Suppose that someone tells us "I have performed extensive experiments, detailed <here>, and determined that adding baking soda to
vinegar invariably produces, immediately and without any gas production, a blue gel."
We can simply add some baking soda to some vinegar and observe that no such thing happens. At this point we know that the experimental
procedures are flawed.
So, we should start by saying: "No, you are wrong, what happens is this:" with evidence if you want to get fancy.
Then, if you like, you can go through the no-doubt several pages of experimental procedures and point out that in fact what it
being added to the vinegar is actually salt, not baking soda, and that the experiment calls the addition of both blue food coloring
and gelatin.
If you start with the second step, then the intrepid would-be-chemist is likely to start in on why the blue food coloring is irrelevant,
and how salt is basically the same thing as baking soda in this context, or whatever. So, start with "your conclusion is wrong",
before you go into debugging the experimental procedure. And, frankly, the latter step is optional.
That's the strong position, anyways. You can go the other way around if you like, but it leads to trouble and more random quoted bits
and pieces.
-
You're missing the point.
If the conclusion is true and you want to be believed, you should have a convincing argument. Sure.
If the conclusion, however, is false, and demonstrably so, we need not even glance at the argument
to know that it is a bad argument.
So, faced with an argument and a conclusion, about which we know nothing, we should first test the conclusion.
If it be false, we are done, except for amusement or curiosity. Unless we MADE the argument, in which case
we probably have a personal interest in addition to curiosity.
Yes, but what if an argument is correct, or you feel so? Then it is important that the argument be sound.
Farmer's conclusion was something I agreed with, more or less, however his first paragraph was not sound. It had nothing to do with why the article would be wrong, all it dealt with was the author's personal attributes.
-
Well, sure, if the conclusion is correct then you won't be able to break it. Then you can check the argument.
Slobodan's "strawman" picture was in response to PeterAit's reply to Russ, and in that context PeterAit's reply was
very much not a strawman at all, it was a direct and specific response to something Russ had said. So, Slobodan
was engaging in rhetorical distraction, simply throwing "strawman" into the mix to create chaos. Which, it is worth
noting, he has succeeded in doing, because to my irritation, we're nor arguing about the argument.
So, to re-iterate, the original cited quillette piece is wrong, and obviously so, see above for a variety of discussion
conclusively demonstrating that.
-
Pieter, I can come up with a list much longer than that one, with sources one actually can believe -- the WSJ for instance -- on the other side of the question. But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. So we're both wasting our time indulging in this absurd discussion.
I'm outta here.
Again attacking the source and losing the argument Russ. I can understand you want out but wish you well in your echo chamber.
Google hits for "Right wing violence"= more than 28 million
Google hits for "Left wing violence" = less than 1 million
So are you really sure you can come up with a longer list?
-
...conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility.
But a picture tells more than a thousand words, these right-wingers are clearly demonstrating they have fully grasped the above principle ;)
(http://www.dw.com/image/18551398_303.jpg)
This will also be my last post here, I think I made my point which is that any side claiming superiority over the other in the way they act (be it "silencing" or "violence") is living in his own echo chamber. In the real world both these extremes are equally bad.
-
So what we have is an assertion, based on local observation and experience that progressives (those who would describe themselves as politically on the left) show more hostility than conservatives (those who would describe themselves as right wing).
So far we have a bunch of people saying ‘this matches my experience so it is true’ and a few of us saying that the hostility thing is not tied to political leanings at all and is just as likely to come from the right as the left.
In an effort to step back and look at things from a different perspective, I would ask you to compare the USA to Europe. Politics from far right reactionary to far left radical exist everywhere, however, in general politics in Europe sits to the left of those in the US: Governments in Europe generally regard themselves as centre right or centre left and are often made up of coalitions, but the system in Europe is generally one of big government, relatively high taxes and stuff like benefits and universal healthcare – this puts them firmly in the area described as ‘progressive’ in posts above.
If progressives are inherently more hostile, one would expect to see this reflected in the politics of 21st century Europe. If this were the case, then surely the Swedes should be constantly rioting in the streets (from the Swedes I know, they would do this very politely, in a thoroughly orderly manner and would reconvene the next day to tidy up).
If you don’t find the European example satisfactory, compare the USA to Canada. Canada appears to have rather more progressive politics than the US, but they don’t have an international reputation for hostility for all that.
I would also like to point out that hostility doesn’t work for social change (which is probably why the extremely pragmatic Scandinavian types don’t go in for much of it, despite being very progressive). The most effective movements for change are non violent – I point to Ghandi’s efforts for Indian independence and on Martin Luther King’s civil rights work.
In truth, people get hostile where they think there is an injustice (that is a reason for the hostility, not an excuse for it). People get passionate over injustice, be it a belief that people do not think that black lives matter, or that someone is trying to take away their constitutional rights. A hostile minority can be very visible, this does not mean they are representative of the majority of people with either progressive or conservative views.
If we find more people getting passionate about social injustice, maybe there is more social injustice than there should be; if there is an injustice, maybe something should be done to correct it.
-
Again attacking the source and losing the argument Russ. I can understand you want out but wish you well in your echo chamber.
Google hits for "Right wing violence"= more than 28 million
Google hits for "Left wing violence" = less than 1 million
So are you really sure you can come up with a longer list?
Pieter, you overlooked one simple phrase: "with sources one actually can believe." "Google hits" isn't much of a measuring stick. Damn right I'm attacking the sources. That's the guts of the problem.
-
"Attacking sources" boils down to "dismissing any sources which don't support my opinion" in general.
-
Not at all. There's a difference between "attacking sources" and distinguishing a difference between reliable sources and unreliable sources.
But, bottom line, sources don't really matter. In this case, what really matters is the number of violent acts by the left versus violent acts by the right. I gave Pieter a couple examples of violence or threats of violence by the left. If I were willing to take the time to do it I probably could come up with a hundred more. But all Pieter's been able to come back with is a story of a teacher being fired for teaching a point of view inimical to the views of the establishment.
Frankly, though there may be one, I can't think of a single recent case of violence or its threat by right-wingers. I can come up with a few Nazi marches, but those weren't threats; they were performances. Besides that, who says Nazis are right-wingers? "Nazi" means National Socialist party. Doesn't sound too right-wing to me.
-
So you're not remembering the Nazi who drove his car into the crowd at the recent Nazi performance?
-
Pieter, you overlooked one simple phrase: "with sources one actually can believe." "Google hits" isn't much of a measuring stick. Damn right I'm attacking the sources. That's the guts of the problem.
For proof of that within our own little world of snaps, just look at how often well-known images are credited to the wrong photographer and even, in many cases, the wrong models.
If there's a good side to this pile of bad information, it's in that it shows how, by contrast, the old ways of studying something in depth, pre-digital world, really did give folks some valid information and knowledge. A further problem with the Google world is that people with amost no knowledge of something can simply consult the good doctor and write what might pass, within the tiny context of a forum such as this, for a learned opinion.
-
So you're not remembering the Nazi who drove his car into the crowd at the recent Nazi performance?
The use of the word Nazi today, especially in a country outwith Germany or Austria, seems a little far-fetched to me. But hey, the emotional kick welded to that word sure does lend lots of faux clout to the arguments of the people who use it at every opportunity.
Truth to tell, it's not far removed from the way that red has been hijacked as a political measurement.
-
"Nazi" and "Fascist" are both just words that mean "Someone I disagree with", to be sure. But there are people in the USA who self-identify as Nazis, and it is these people that Russ is disavowing.
I will no perform the same maneuver but more efficiently:
Since "progress" in any meaningful form depends on discourse and open-mindedness, I declare that closed minded people, by definition, cannot be progressives. It therefore follows, trivially, that all progressives are more or less open-minded.
(this saves me the trouble of piecemeal disavowing whatever disagreeable wretches Russ comes up with)
-
"Nazi" and "Fascist" are both just words that mean "Someone I disagree with", to be sure. But there are people in the USA who self-identify as Nazis, and it is these people that Russ is disavowing.
I will no perform the same maneuver but more efficiently:
Since "progress" in any meaningful form depends on discourse and open-mindedness, I declare that closed minded people, by definition, cannot be progressives. It therefore follows, trivially, that all progressives are more or less open-minded.
(this saves me the trouble of piecemeal disavowing whatever disagreeable wretches Russ comes up with)
Ah, now I understand. A guy, thinking himself the last man on Earth, leaps from the top of the Chrysler Buildng and, just before head meets cement, he hears his cellphone ring. That is progress, both vertical and spiritual.
No doubt, even if not open-minded, he will find himself at least open-headed - should he linger long enough.
You explain scientific things so well! Thank you!
;-)
-
Since "progress" in any meaningful form depends on discourse and open-mindedness, I declare that closed minded people, by definition, cannot be progressives. It therefore follows, trivially, that all progressives are more or less open-minded.
Even assuming that your declaration has validity (as to which I make no comment), your argument is a variant of the syllogism of the undistributed middle: "All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog".
Jeremy
-
Even assuming that your declaration has validity (as to which I make no comment), your argument is a variant of the syllogism of the undistributed middle: "All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog".
Jeremy
Now I understand why, of late, I have found some arguments difficult to follow!
Thank you for the clarification.
-
ETA: This exchange places Jeremy in an interesting position, doesn't it? By picking a fight with one of the active participants in the thread, he places himself in an awkward position in terms of moderating it. Let us see how this evolves, shall we?
No, Jeremy, it is not. There are some negations that have to be combed out, but ultimately, it's not even a syllogism. There are only two terms in play: Closed Minded People (C) and Progressive People (P).
The first statement, which I assert as true by definition, is "A member of C cannot be P" or more formally "There exist no Cs which are also Ps".
The conclusion is simply a logically equivalent re-arrangement of this "All Ps are not C".
That these are logically equivalent can be seen set theoretically, if you imagine a sort of Venn diagram, both statements merely assert that the big circle labelled C does not overlap with the big circle labelled P. Or you can apply the standard rules for distributing negations around in statements with universal and existential quantifiers, see also first order logic.
I attach the standard identity:
-
"Nazi" and "Fascist" are both just words that mean "Someone I disagree with. . .
Try telling that to a Jew who was at Auschwitz, Andrew, but be ready to run for your life.
But there are people in the USA who self-identify as Nazis, and it is these people that Russ is disavowing.
Are you saying you don't disavow these self-identified National Socialists?
Nowhere yet has Pieter given me even one example of right-wing disruption to offset the two extensively documented ones I gave him. Give me an example, Andrew or Pieter, of a case where "right-wingers" (meaning people who understand the overarching value of capitalism) have disrupted a college lecture by a visitor. There may be one out there, but I'm not aware of it.
-
Well, Russ, I dare say if you went back to the 1960s when the right was more in ascendance on college campuses you'd find a few examples. Nowadays, as I mentioned above, a radical fringe of the left holds certain of the reins on college campuses, so I dare say you'll be hard pressed to find contemporary examples of right wing radicals suppressing left wing speech on college campuses.
Finding examples of right wingers off campus who suppress free speech by, for instance, driving their cars into massed protesters, is a little easier.
-
Are you saying you don't disavow these self-identified National Socialists?
No. That's not what I am saying. You can tell, because I didn't say that. If you look at the words that I used, you will notice immediately that I didn't say that.
This is the part of the show where the right wingers attempt to bait their opponents in to breaking the spiffy new forum rules by throwing around absurd, but apparently rule-compliant, accusations. Good luck with that. Discourse is gone, and now we're in an infinite regress of "no, I did not say that, stop accusing me of saying stupid things. No, no, god, I didnt say that either, where are you coming up with this? Oh, right, you're just baiting me. <censored> <censored><censored>"
-
Besides that, who says Nazis are right-wingers? "Nazi" means National Socialist party. Doesn't sound too right-wing to me.
Adolf was too busy to change the name once he gutted Rem (Rohm) and Strasser the Elder.
-
Yes, I know that. Tell me what you think he intended to change the name to.
-
Try telling that to a Jew who was at Auschwitz, Andrew, but be ready to run for your life.
Are you saying you don't disavow these self-identified National Socialists?
Nowhere yet has Pieter given me even one example of right-wing disruption to offset the two extensively documented ones I gave him. Give me an example, Andrew or Pieter, of a case where "right-wingers" (meaning people who understand the overarching value of capitalism) have disrupted a college lecture by a visitor. There may be one out there, but I'm not aware of it.
For the second time in as many pages, Russ, a few incidents do not make "data." Read and learn. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data)
-
Please explain what you think that means, James.
-
ETA: This exchange places Jeremy in an interesting position, doesn't it? By picking a fight with one of the active participants in the thread, he places himself in an awkward position in terms of moderating it. Let us see how this evolves, shall we?
There's nothing "interesting" about my position.
First, I'm not "picking a fight" with anyone, merely disagreeing; and your use of that phrase is perhaps indicative of why some threads disintegrate into abuse so easily. Secondly, as I've made clear, there is precisely zero prospect of my taking "executive" action against anyone who expresses views with which I disagree merely because I disagree with them; action will be taken against anyone who breaks the rules I set out.
Jeremy
-
There's nothing "interesting" about my position.
Jeremy
Well, it's "interesting," Jeremy, in the same sense that it's "interesting" if you're at 35,000 feet and your engine flames out.
Good luck, my friend.
-
Please explain what you think that means, James.
Well, Russ, here's the takeaway:
Overall public support for free speech is rising over time, not falling. People on the political right are less supportive of free speech than people on the left. College graduates are more supportive than non-graduates. Indeed, a 2016 Knight Foundation survey showed that college students are less likely than the overall population to support restrictions on speech on campus. Among the public at large, meanwhile, the group whose speech the public is most likely to favor stifling is Muslims.
The alarm about student protesters, in other words, though not always mistaken about particular cases, is generally grounded in a completely mistaken view of the big-picture state of American society and public opinion, both on and off campus.
What it "means" is that anecdotal incidents where a group of lefty students can't stand to have their delicate sensibilities offended are seemingly statistically insignificant, and that one ought not to draw societal conclusions about liberals, universities, or students because of them, because said conclusions would be, in a word, wrong. (Unless, apparently, you're shutting down the right of a Muslim to speak, in which case there are some alarming tendencies toward that particular sort of censorship. I suspect it's not the lefty students doing that, though.)
-
... I'm not "picking a fight" with anyone, merely disagreeing; and your use of that phrase is perhaps indicative of why some threads disintegrate into abuse so easily...
-
College graduates are more supportive than non-graduates. Indeed, a 2016 Knight Foundation survey showed that college students are less likely than the overall population to support restrictions on speech on campus.
"Yale fail: Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment.html
... a solid majority of the students asked willingly signed the petition, with several expressing their enthusiastic approval for his anti-First Amendment efforts.
-
Well, Russ, here's the takeaway:
What it "means" is that anecdotal incidents where a group of lefty students can't stand to have their delicate sensibilities offended are seemingly statistically insignificant, and that one ought not to draw societal conclusions about liberals, universities, or students because of them, because said conclusions would be, in a word, wrong. (Unless, apparently, you're shutting down the right of a Muslim to speak, in which case there are some alarming tendencies toward that particular sort of censorship. I suspect it's not the lefty students doing that, though.)
Really? You don't think you can draw any conclusions from the fact that the use of violence or the threat of violence to shut down an argument always seems to come from one side of the argument and almost never from the other side?
And if, as your "takeaway" claims: "People on the political right are less supportive of free speech than people on the left." Can you give me even one example of the political right using violence or the threat of violence to shut down speech, especially on campus? I keep getting vague assertions, like these, that it happens, but nobody seems to be able to come up with an example. I can pretty easily come up with a dozen cases of the left using violence or the threat of violence to shut down conservative speech, especially on campus.
Can you draw conclusions from the fact that the sun seems always to rise in the morning and, so far, never in the evening? Yes. I can draw conclusions from evidence as one-sided as that.
-
Slobodan, I must say I find it quite unlikely that you have somehow failed to do the homework on that video. You are an intelligent fellow and perfectly capable of using Google.
There is therefore no need for me to perform the tedious errand of detailing what exactly is true, what is false, and what falls into a gray area, regarding that video.
-
"Yale fail: Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment.html
That's cute, in a Jon Stewart kind of way. But at least maybe some of those goofballs can't vote yet. Hopefully they'll get US History 101 before they bother. :)
On the other hand, at least it's not like they have any actual capacity to effect change and want to open up those libel laws regarding public figures or anything. THAT would be really concerning.
-
Hypothetically, now, purely hypothetically, with the kind of prescriptive rules we are operating under the following scenario becomes viable:
Hypothesize, if you will, a small group of people interested in chaos rather than debate. This group can engage in baiting behavior, spending perhaps 5 minutes a day dashing off standard fare they've used before, or are lifting from other forums. This dashed off material is designed to lure the opposition in to spending substantially more time replying to the bait, as well as to be irritating to the other side. In addition, this material is designed to comply with prescriptive rules, perhaps, for example, it lacks cursing and personal insults, but speaks airily of "general groups" leaving the obvious targets unmentioned.
This costs the baiters essentially nothing, and since they have no real skin in the game, they can do it more or less forever without ever violating one of the prescriptions. Remember, these hypothetical entities simply don't care, they have no emotional involvement, and anyways they're writing at most a handful of words a day. It is therefore easy for them to police their own efforts to remain within the envelope of whatever the forum's prescriptions are.
By keeping the opposition busy and irritated, and by eliciting much lengthier and detailed responses from the opposition, they essentially guarantee that, eventually, each member of the opposition will, in a fit of irritation, break one of the forum prescriptions. This is, hypothetically, the actual goal of the game. This is the victory condition of this mythical game I am sketching out here, in an exercise of the imagination.
Moderation, therefore, gets applied almost exclusively to people who are actually trying to discuss things. Hypothetically.
Eventually, everyone except the baiters leaves.
Then the forum has several options available, it can lie fallow. It can close up shop. It can pivot to serving a fringe audience, like godlike.com, and evidently there's good money to be made there. So, that could be good.
-
Really? You don't think you can draw any conclusions from the fact that the use of violence or the threat of violence to shut down an argument always seems to come from one side of the argument and almost never from the other side?
And if, as your "takeaway" claims: "People on the political right are less supportive of free speech than people on the left." Can you give me even one example of the political right using violence or the threat of violence to shut down speech, especially on campus? I keep getting vague assertions, like these, that it happens, but nobody seems to be able to come up with an example. I can pretty easily come up with a dozen cases of the left using violence or the threat of violence to shut down conservative speech, especially on campus.
Can you draw conclusions from the fact that the sun seems always to rise in the morning and, so far, never in the evening? Yes. I can draw conclusions from evidence as one-sided as that.
One. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/nyregion/james-martin-gay-catholics-criticism.html?_r=0)
Two. (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article100715092.html)
Three. (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/anti-amnesty-activists-shout-down-dem-rep-gutierrez-with-usa-chant-during-spanish-language-event/)
But this isn't even the point. The point is, and remains, that you are assuming isolated incidents reflect the left as a whole, when there's plenty of evidence that that's not the case. And you're compounding your error by seemingly excusing their mirrors on the right by claiming that they are somehow less representative because apparently they do their violence in the street instead of on campus, or simply denying that said claims are reputable because "fake news" (while simultaneously citing Breitbart, which is absurd)
Were someone to simply state that incidents like Berkeley are abhorrent and need to be condemned, I suspect very few would disagree with you, and most would doubtlessly agree that these specific lefties are problematic, but this whole thread started with a thinly researched accusation that "progressives" are less tolerant than conservatives as a rule, and it doesn't seem to be true, at least not based on anything presented here.
-
... By keeping the opposition busy and irritated, and by eliciting much lengthier and detailed responses from the opposition, they essentially guarantee that, eventually, each member of the opposition will, in a fit of irritation, break one of the forum prescriptions...
Outbursts of emotional hostility from progressive activists ... have come to be known as getting ‘triggered.’ This term originally applied to sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but activists have adopted it to describe the anxiety and discomfort they experience when they are exposed to views with which they disagree.
-
One. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/nyregion/james-martin-gay-catholics-criticism.html?_r=0)
Two. (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article100715092.html)
Three. (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/anti-amnesty-activists-shout-down-dem-rep-gutierrez-with-usa-chant-during-spanish-language-event/)
And the violence used during these "backlashes" was. . .?
-
And the violence used during these "backlashes" was. . .?
Looking at the first case...
"He noted that among the more than 700 comments on Martin's Facebook post are attacks against him, including several who expressed a desire to punch him in the face. He called on Martin to urge his followers to cease such attacks, including calls for his termination,"
So threats to his person, to his job, plus some pretty derogatory language.
-
Hi Slobodan,
You only quoted the contribution of others.
Your contribution with your post (Reply #107) is ...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
And the violence used during these "backlashes" was. . .?
And the second..
"We worried about safety of students, and about perhaps having a guest on campus not be treated right,” Long said.
“I hope that our civic discourse here would be respectful to all persons in the future. I felt the behaviors in some of the messages to me were not respectful.”
-
And the violence used during these "backlashes" was. . .?
"..or threat of violence..."
But by all means, keeps moving the goalposts when you're proven wrong. You're quite adept at that. So, to repeat myself. Again.
But this isn't even the point. The point is, and remains, that you are assuming isolated incidents reflect the left as a whole, when there's plenty of evidence that that's not the case. And you're compounding your error by seemingly excusing their mirrors on the right by claiming that they are somehow less representative because apparently they do their violence in the street instead of on campus, or simply denying that said claims are reputable because "fake news" (while simultaneously citing Breitbart, which is absurd)
-
And the violence used during these "backlashes" was. . .?
The third does not mention physical violence directly, but did involve shouting the speaker down (so denying him free speech) simply because he wasn't using English and would seem to have been raucous enough to justify bringing in the police to keep order.
-
... several who expressed a desire to punch him in the face....
Pope Francis: 'I'll PUNCH anyone who insults my mother'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pope-francis-ill-punch-anyone-4987451
-
Pope Francis: 'I'll PUNCH anyone who insults my mother'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pope-francis-ill-punch-anyone-4987451
Playing the troll and goading "liberals" into expressing frustration because you refuse to engage in honest conversation doesn't actually support the point of your original article. You know that right?
-
... because you refuse to engage in honest conversation...
I will not participate by "engaging" in any conversation on political or social issues* as long as Andrew Molitor continues to post on LuLa without any censure, after engaging in vicious personal attacks against me and Russ, using horrible obscenities in the recently locked thread (providing now a perfect example for the OP article):
“… wildly fucking offensive.
Let's try this out, Russ. I'm gonna hold a gun to one of your loved one's heads now "Suck my cock, Russ, or I will blow her fucking head off, but hey, you've got a choice, so it must just be that you love the dick, right? C'mon, big guy, on your knees!”
“Slobodan and Russ, you are a fucking problem”
* For those who are cheering my decision, or heaving a sigh or relief... settle down, I love you too
-
I was frankly surprised not to be particularly censured and have no particular objection to a retroactive decision being made and applied.
-
I will not participate by "engaging" in any conversation on political or social issues* as long as Andrew Molitor continues to post on LuLa without any censure, after engaging in vicious personal attacks against me and Russ, using horrible obscenities in the recently locked thread...
So you'll just troll everyone else because Andrew went off on a hyperbolic rant? Is that simply misplaced aggression or have you been triggered ;)
-
So you'll just troll everyone else because Andrew went off on a hyperbolic rant? Is that simply misplaced aggression or have you been triggered ;)
https://goo.gl/images/7h8oHh
:-)
-
Outbursts of emotional hostility from progressive activists ... have come to be known as getting ‘triggered.’ This term originally applied to sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but activists have adopted it to describe the anxiety and discomfort they experience when they are exposed to views with which they disagree.
Yes, right wing activists don't get triggered ;) They only drive cars into their opponents >:(
(https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTX1KURH.jpg?itok=hNs7ckIk)
And for Russ: Another example of extreme conservative violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting)
But as I said earlier this is all besides the point, you can nitpick about details all you want, for me the point is that agressive and sometimes illegal activities to stop "the other side" is happening on all sides of the spectrum and is equally bad.
I already said I was leaving this thread yesterday, but I couldn't resist the urge to react one more time. I hope I can keep my promise now :)
-
The massive flaw - possibly on both sides of the spectrum, insofar as it might be assumed to have but two sides - is this: in the graphic illustrations used to "prove" extremist violence as pertaining more to this or to the other party, the people shown are ever the same collection of losers always found at the bottom of the socio-economic pile, regardless of the name of the political party they think represents them, when in truth, they are totally disenfranchised by their own inability to make a reasonable way in life.
These people are not about political parties, they are about hopelessness and nothing left to lose. I would also imagine that there will be a large behavioural influence due to drugs of various types.
Come to think of it, they repesent a perfect recruiting ground for any form of politics or religion that promises them release from themselves and the place they find themselves, regardless of how impossible or at least unlikely, such an escape can ever be. The best way to attain that hold over such people is by transferring blame for the condition onto other shoulders than their own; a policy which, surprisingly often finds support in the ranks of those better-offs who suffer from some sort of misplaced guilt due to their own better progress in life.
On every possible count, there will never be equality, if only because of the huge differences between people, not only due to money but to intelligence, opportunity and desire, even amongst those in broadly similar circumstances. It would be interesting to do a survey of all the kids we knew at school, who were in the top grades then: where are they today, who got rich and who made a total fuck-up of their opportunities. I bet you they did not all end up living the expected dream, driving the new BMW or anything similar. Far from depending 100% on the starting line alone, the final outcome depends almost totally on the runner.
-
Looking at the first case...
"He noted that among the more than 700 comments on Martin's Facebook post are attacks against him, including several who expressed a desire to punch him in the face. He called on Martin to urge his followers to cease such attacks, including calls for his termination,"
So threats to his person, to his job, plus some pretty derogatory language.
Golly!!! That must have been really scary for him. Nasty comments on Facebook! And derogatory language? Good grief!
-
And the second..
"We worried about safety of students, and about perhaps having a guest on campus not be treated right,” Long said.
“I hope that our civic discourse here would be respectful to all persons in the future. I felt the behaviors in some of the messages to me were not respectful.”
Even worse!!! Disrespectful behavior in messages? What a terrifying thing!!! Poor soul.
-
The third does not mention physical violence directly, but did involve shouting the speaker down (so denying him free speech) simply because he wasn't using English and would seem to have been raucous enough to justify bringing in the police to keep order.
Well, if there's shouting, that's probably at least the equivalent of physical violence. Poor soul.
-
The massive flaw - possibly on both sides of the spectrum, insofar as it might be assumed to have but two sides - is this: in the graphic illustrations used to "prove" extremist violence as pertaining more to this or to the other party, the people shown are ever the same collection of losers always found at the bottom of the socio-economic pile, regardless of the name of the political party they think represents them, when in truth, they are totally disenfranchised by their own inability to make a reasonable way in life.
These people are not about political parties, they are about hopelessness and nothing left to lose. I would also imagine that there will be a large behavioural influence due to drugs of various types.
Come to think of it, they repesent a perfect recruiting ground for any form of politics or religion that promises them release from themselves and the place they find themselves, regardless of how impossible or at least unlikely, such an escape can ever be. The best way to attain that hold over such people is by transferring blame for the condition onto other shoulders than their own; a policy which, surprisingly often finds support in the ranks of those better-offs who suffer from some sort of misplaced guilt due to their own better progress in life.
On every possible count, there will never be equality, if only because of the huge differences between people, not only due to money but to intelligence, opportunity and desire, even amongst those in broadly similar circumstances. It would be interesting to do a survey of all the kids we knew at school, who were in the top grades then: where are they today, who got rich and who made a total fuck-up of their opportunities. I bet you they did not all end up living the expected dream, driving the new BMW or anything similar. Far from depending 100% on the starting line alone, the final outcome depends almost totally on the runner.
On here and on previous pages, there has been talk about equality, but no one seems to make the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of result. They're not the same thing, it's useful to make the distinction.
-
Well, if there's shouting, that's probably at least the equivalent of physical violence. Poor soul.
Well, exactly the same happened during you pet case of C.A. Murray speaking at the Univ. of Michigan.
So I guess that wasn't too bad either. I think the scratch on his soul will have healed by now.
-
I don't know where you get your news, Pieter, but I think I can guess. There was more than shouting in that situation. There were threats of physical violence. There's a difference.
-
And for Russ: Another example of extreme conservative violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting)
Extreme conservative violence? The guy was a nut. The only reason he wasn't confined in a mental institution is that at the end of last century, and at the behest of the left, we "deinstitutionalized" people who'd have been better off confined. Same problem that led to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The guy was a nut. The cops knew he was a nut. The feds knew he was a nut. The school management knew he was a nut. But now, instead of confinement in an institution he's gonna face the death penalty. Less than a year ago we had the Pulse shooting: another unconfined crazy.
Now, I understand that left-wingers who shout and threaten at events like a lecture by Ben Shapiro also have mental problems, but so far they haven't risen to the level that would require institutionalization. They're working on it, though.
-
Extreme conservative violence? The guy was a nut. The only reason he wasn't confined in a mental institution is that at the end of last century, and at the behest of the left, we "deinstitutionalized" people who'd have been better off confined. Same problem that led to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The guy was a nut. The cops knew he was a nut. The feds knew he was a nut. The school management knew he was a nut. But now, instead of confinement in an institution he's gonna face the death penalty. Less than a year ago we had the Pulse shooting: another unconfined crazy.
Now, I understand that left-wingers who shout and threaten at events like a lecture by Ben Shapiro also have mental problems, but so far they haven't risen to the level that would require institutionalization. They're working on it, though.
Hey Russ? Just admit you're wrong and move along. We all have to at some point, and today's your day!
And for the future, you could try to make it a point to post/discuss without throwing sideways insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Just a little helpful advice.
Thanks for your attention :) You're dismissed.
-
Thanks for the consideration, James. And that's a really well-argued answer to the questions raised in the thread: just "move along." Fits right in with the arguments I see on the other side of the discussion.
-
Thanks for the consideration, James. And that's a really well-argued answer to the questions raised in the thread: just "move along." Fits right in with the arguments I see on the other side of the discussion.
Oh, I already made my well reasoned arguments. I cited studies, linked to incidents that fit your requests and so on. I showed you aggregated data that indicates (or at least argues) that on the whole, the premise of this thread is incorrect. I provided a link to a database showing speech intimidation on both sides of the aisle, and hey, I even admitted that there's been a documented imbalance (on campuses at least) over the last year or two.
Others asked why you restrict your definition of "violence" to college campuses where a right-leaning speaker is harassed, when right-wing violence is also occurring in the world around us. Many other people saw these points, and responded either with counterpoints, agreement, or additions. You simply chose to insult those people, their sources (while claiming Breitbart no less), or changed the terms of your conditions, or made excuses for those committing such acts from the right, while generalizing about those committing these acts from the left.
Besides, it's not like this is an isolated case with you - there's a definite pattern. Heck, Russ, you can't even comment on *photographs* without throwing sidelong insults at the other members of Lula regarding how they or their subject matter don't meet your standards of worthiness, even in cases where that's pretty much a total non sequitur.
So pot, meet kettle.
Now Russ, bear in mind that I'd never say that you should lose your right to express your opinion, here or anywhere else. That's one area where you, I, Slobodan and some others agree 100% I'm merely suggesting that if someone is unwilling to learn or make an honest exchange of information, they might better serve the community by keeping quiet and spending a little time in self-reflection.
I learn something pretty much every day. Do you?
Really though - go back, look at what you've written here and elsewhere. Think about whether or not you treat your fellow contributors here with respect. Especially those that disagree with you.
-
On here and on previous pages, there has been talk about equality, but no one seems to make the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of result. They're not the same thing, it's useful to make the distinction.
Right, Robert, and the reason is obvious: if you are willing to accept that equal opportunity does not lead to equal result, you are forced to accept that all people are not equal, which should really be obvious before any argument on that score even begins.
Frankly, I think it far more desirable to be a little odd, a misfit, even, than to fit perfectly and seamlessly into some mundane, stereotypical mould that garners peer approval for conformity.
However, such a concept does not a happy leftie make: he knows that tall poppies have but one purpose in life, and that is to get chopped down to size.
Far better to do as I am about to do: go feed that old white mare down the road a couple of carrots!
;-)
Rob
-
I don't know where you get your news, Pieter, but I think I can guess. There was more than shouting in that situation. There were threats of physical violence. There's a difference.
Whew threats of physical violence, you make me shake. And there were none in the three aggression cases you belittled? Oops, do I smell a double standard here?
-
Oh, I already made my well reasoned arguments. I cited studies, linked to incidents that fit your requests and so on. I showed you aggregated data that indicates (or at least argues) that on the whole, the premise of this thread is incorrect. I provided a link to a database showing speech intimidation on both sides of the aisle, and hey, I even admitted that there's been a documented imbalance (on campuses at least) over the last year or two.
Others asked why you restrict your definition of "violence" to college campuses where a right-leaning speaker is harassed, when right-wing violence is also occurring in the world around us. Many other people saw these points, and responded either with counterpoints, agreement, or additions. You simply chose to insult those people, their sources (while claiming Breitbart no less), or changed the terms of your conditions, or made excuses for those committing such acts from the right, while generalizing about those committing these acts from the left.
Besides, it's not like this is an isolated case with you - there's a definite pattern. Heck, Russ, you can't even comment on *photographs* without throwing sidelong insults at the other members of Lula regarding how they or their subject matter don't meet your standards of worthiness, even in cases where that's pretty much a total non sequitur.
So pot, meet kettle.
Now Russ, bear in mind that I'd never say that you should lose your right to express your opinion, here or anywhere else. That's one area where you, I, Slobodan and some others agree 100% I'm merely suggesting that if someone is unwilling to learn or make an honest exchange of information, they might better serve the community by keeping quiet and spending a little time in self-reflection.
I learn something pretty much every day. Do you?
Really though - go back, look at what you've written here and elsewhere. Think about whether or not you treat your fellow contributors here with respect. Especially those that disagree with you.
Thanks, James. That sounds like a well-reasoned argument. And "studies" certainly tell us what's going on. After all, figures don't lie. (Which ignores the fact that liars figure.)
But let me go on to the crux. Why do I restrict my definition of "violence" to campuses where what you consider to be "right-leaning" speakers are harassed?
I'll be 88 on Friday, and I've watched the whole thing unfold. I think the main problem with our society nowadays is our universities. They were taken over in the sixties by left-leaning -- I'm tempted to call them "crazies," but I don't want to argue about that. Many of them were hippies, and a few were people who'd not only disrupted our society, but were criminals who'd been let off the hook.
When I was in high school we had rifle teams. Many people owned firearms, but shootings -- especially mass shootings -- were so rare they almost were nonexistent. Near the end of the century I watched the "deinstitutionalization" of mental misfits. I've told the story of the poor woman in Colorado Springs who used to spend her days wandering around town pulling her wheeled suitcase, sitting most of the day slouched on a bench, depending on a couple local restaurants' largess for food. There were plenty of others in the town, like the poor gap-toothed drifter who saw my camera, came up to me and said, "Take my picture," and when I gave him a print of it about a week later broke into tears and said, "That's the first time somebody's taken my picture in twenty years."
Now, these people were -- at least at the moment -- harmless, but needed to be out of society and in a place where they could be cared for and watched, not only for their own good but for the safety of society at large. But it isn't going to happen, and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a direct result of our unwillingness to deal with the problem.
What happened? The people who went to war in WW II grew up in a world scarred by the Great Depression. When the war was over and they settled down again, they swore their kids never would have to face the kinds of hardships they'd faced, so they supported those kids well beyond the time when they should have been out of the house, and they made sure gathering places like schools were "gun free zones." They did their best to remove any irritants or obstacles the kids might face. The result was what we called the "boomers." The boomers carried the idea that kids shouldn't have to face life head-on far beyond where their parents had carried it.
So now we have a couple generations that aren't willing or able to face the world as it is. Roughly half of the group we call millennials believe socialism is better than capitalism, though even a simple, quick examination of history refutes that idea. Sure, capitalism has its problems. but to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the rest.
The bottom line? Our universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem.
I have no idea how old you are James. N/A doesn't tell me much. Same thing with your location. If I knew whether "Local Time" means local for you or local for me I might be able to guess. But why should I have to do that. In the end, all I have is your collection of assertions and references to "studies." That doesn't cut it.
-
Whew threats of physical violence, you make me shake. And there were none in the three aggression cases you belittled? Oops, do I smell a double standard here?
You really need to go back and reread the posts, Pieter. One was about "attacks on Facebook." One was about "disrespectful messages," and one was about "shouting." That may be a double standard for you, but none of the three make me shake in my boots.
-
You really need to go back and reread the posts, Pieter. One was about "attacks on Facebook." One was about "disrespectful messages," and one was about "shouting." That may be a double standard for you, but none of the three make me shake in my boots.
Russ, Before I responded to you I've read several reports about that meeting (from different directions, left and right) and while there was significant yelling at the start no one mentioned physical violence or a threat thereof. To the contrary, no arrests were made and Murray could finish his speech. Sound OK to me and not much different from the other cases James brought. So you're either overplaying the treatment Murray got or underplaying these other reports.
Also doing this research I found a very interesting quote from Murray:
"We've got to stop treating people as groups," he later added. "You deal with people as individuals and not as members of groups. Because insofar as you deal with people as members of groups, as we have increasingly been doing, then everybody gets inflamed for any perceived problem that the group has."
Since you seem to like him maybe you should follow his advice and stop putting all liberals/progressives/lefties in one evil group. You are clearly inflamed by what a few of them did and may be even rightfully so, but to add to that I think there are many that are OK and there are many nutcases on the right as well that we should condemn for their actions (just like the nutcases on the left).
-
The guy was a nut.
And a conservative, and it's only one example of the violence extreme conservatives conflicted upon abortion clinics. So stop nitpicking one example and look at the big picture, which is that illegal actions to make your point come from all sides of the spectrum and are not confined to only the left.
-
Russ, Before I responded to you I've read several reports about that meeting (from different directions, left and right) and while there was significant yelling at the start no one mentioned physical violence or a threat thereof. To the contrary, no arrests were made and Murray could finish his speech. Sound OK to me and not much different from the other cases James brought. So you're either overplaying the treatment Murray got or underplaying these other reports.
Also doing this research I found a very interesting quote from Murray:
"We've got to stop treating people as groups," he later added. "You deal with people as individuals and not as members of groups. Because insofar as you deal with people as members of groups, as we have increasingly been doing, then everybody gets inflamed for any perceived problem that the group has."
Since you seem to like him maybe you should follow his advice and stop putting all liberals/progressives/lefties in one evil group. You are clearly inflamed by what a few of them did and may be even rightfully so, but to add to that I think there are many that are OK and there are many nutcases on the right as well that we should condemn for their actions (just like the nutcases on the left).
Absolutely, Pieter. I agree with Murray's comment completely. I should also tell you that I have two daughters-in-law and a number of friends who are left, far left, or in some cases very far left. We get along well, drink Perfect Manhattans together, discuss all sorts of things, and stay strictly away from politics.
I can't really argue about whether or not there were threats of violence at Murray's lecture. I wasn't there, and I've read conflicting reports. But, bottom line, why should there have been shouting? Murray was there to make a speech. If you didn't want to listen to the speech, all you had to do was stay away. It's pretty obvious that the shouting was orchestrated, and was intended to shut him up.
What really bothers me is the fact that university management in many cases is part of the problem. Left-wing professors object and complain and management caves. Students complain because that's what they've been taught to do. It's time to hire some retired military officers to run our universities and shut down the crap.
In the end I stand by what I just told James. What scares me most is that we depend on universities to give us our successors -- educated and ready to face life as it actually is, not as professors feel it ought to be. Unless these kids can hear all sides of the relevant arguments Western society is going to be in deep, deep trouble
-
And a conservative, and it's only one example of the violence extreme conservatives conflicted upon abortion clinics. So stop nitpicking one example and look at the big picture, which is that illegal actions to make your point come from all sides of the spectrum and are not confined to only the left.
Actually, I don't think you can say nuts are conservatives or liberals. They're just nuts.
-
Thanks, James. That sounds like a well-reasoned argument. And "studies" certainly tell us what's going on. After all, figures don't lie. (Which ignores the fact that liars figure.)
But let me go on to the crux. Why do I restrict my definition of "violence" to campuses where what you consider to be "right-leaning" speakers are harassed?
I'll be 88 on Friday, and I've watched the whole thing unfold. I think the main problem with our society nowadays is our universities. They were taken over in the sixties by left-leaning -- I'm tempted to call them "crazies," but I don't want to argue about that. Many of them were hippies, and a few were people who'd not only disrupted our society, but were criminals who'd been let off the hook.
When I was in high school we had rifle teams. Many people owned firearms, but shootings -- especially mass shootings -- were so rare they almost were nonexistent. Near the end of the century I watched the "deinstitutionalization" of mental misfits. I've told the story of the poor woman in Colorado Springs who used to spend her days wandering around town pulling her wheeled suitcase, sitting most of the day slouched on a bench, depending on a couple local restaurants' largess for food. There were plenty of others in the town, like the poor gap-toothed drifter who saw my camera, came up to me and said, "Take my picture," and when I gave him a print of it about a week later broke into tears and said, "That's the first time somebody's taken my picture in twenty years."
Now, these people were -- at least at the moment -- harmless, but needed to be out of society and in a place where they could be cared for and watched, not only for their own good but for the safety of society at large. But it isn't going to happen, and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a direct result of our unwillingness to deal with the problem.
What happened? The people who went to war in WW II grew up in a world scarred by the Great Depression. When the war was over and they settled down again, they swore their kids never would have to face the kinds of hardships they'd faced, so they supported those kids well beyond the time when they should have been out of the house, and they made sure gathering places like schools were "gun free zones." They did their best to remove any irritants or obstacles the kids might face. The result was what we called the "boomers." The boomers carried the idea that kids shouldn't have to face life head-on far beyond where their parents had carried it.
So now we have a couple generations that aren't willing or able to face the world as it is. Roughly half of the group we call millennials believe socialism is better than capitalism, though even a simple, quick examination of history refutes that idea. Sure, capitalism has its problems. but to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the rest.
The bottom line? Our universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem.
I have no idea how old you are James. N/A doesn't tell me much. Same thing with your location. If I knew whether "Local Time" means local for you or local for me I might be able to guess. But why should I have to do that. In the end, all I have is your collection of assertions and references to "studies." That doesn't cut it.
Thank you Russ - I appreciate the reply. I have some thoughts that I will be happy to share a bit later today when I have more time, as I do owe you the courtesy of a thought out reply like the one you've just provided to me. You'll not be surprised that I disagree with much of what you just wrote. You may be more surprised to find that I agree with some of it as well...
Cheers.
-
I can't really argue about whether or not there were threats of violence at Murray's lecture. I wasn't there, and I've read conflicting reports. But, bottom line, why should there have been shouting? Murray was there to make a speech. If you didn't want to listen to the speech, all you had to do was stay away. It's pretty obvious that the shouting was orchestrated, and was intended to shut him up.
I fully agree and never denied any of these shoutings are utter crap, just like all the utter crap in the three cases James brought. And I'm sure we can find many other cases of both extreme progressives and extreme conservatives trying to shout down (either at the venue or on social media leading up to the event) speeches they don't want to hear. Violent or non-violent, it just goes against the quest for free speech from any direction.
And while I don't share your conern regarding US universities I do know that many have advisory boards made up of people who graduated there. So rather than complaining and worrying you can do something to move it in the direction you want them to go, muster enough support of former classmates (and years before/after) who share you concern and start talking and persuading. That energy is probably better spent then postinge here on LuLa. But my gut feel is also that you will find then that the situation is not as bad as you thought.
-
... advisory boards made up of people who graduated there. So rather than complaining and worrying you can do something to move it in the direction you want them to go, muster enough support of former classmates (and years before/after) who share you concern and start talking and persuading...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"Long After Protests, Students Shun the University of Missouri"
Freshman enrollment at the Columbia campus, the system’s flagship, has fallen by more than 35 percent in the two years since.
... the university is temporarily closing seven dormitories and cutting more than 400 positions,
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"Long After Protests, Students Shun the University of Missouri"
Russ graduated from the University of Michigan, not the University of Missouri.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"Long After Protests, Students Shun the University of Missouri"
Tried to check it out, Slobodan, but they want me to subscribe! As everyone and his hush puppy knows, subscription is the door to trouble.
-
Tried to check it out, Slobodan, but they want me to subscribe! As everyone and his hush puppy knows, subscription is the door to trouble.
I do not know why Rob, they did not asked me to subscribe (and I am not already their subscriber). I will send you a pdf of the article via email.
-
Let me ask you guys something. Do you believe the United States is, for the moment at least, providing stability for the free world, which includes not only what we know as the West, but also free Asian nations such as Japan, Thailand and Taiwan, as well as Israel in the Middle East? Let's call that collection the free world.
I don't want to get too carried away with the comparison, but I see the US at the moment providing approximately the same kind of anchor for the free world that Britain provided for the West until WW II.
The US's current situation in world affairs devolves from its ability during WW II to provide the Allies with massive amounts of materiel that allowed us to win that war and from its ability after the war to provide immense financial and material assistance for the reconstruction of Europe and Asia. The US then went on, for the next seventy some years to provide defense for the free world against the Soviet Union and its minions. It's still doing that. Most NATO nations provide only a fraction of the contributions to their defense they agreed to when NATO was formed. The US constantly makes up the difference.
But at the same time I see the ability of the US to continue as the stabilizer for the free world fraying at the edges as we take on more debt, let our military degenerate as a result of political pressure from the left, and become more and more apathetic about, and even resistant to the demands made upon us for our own defense.
Nothing lasts forever, and the US isn't going to last forever, any more than Britain or Rome or Byzantium did. And that's a scary thought, or at least it should be if you're one of the societies depending on the US for your defense.
If your answer to my first question was "yes," then you ought to be concerned by what's going on with US education, starting in grade school and running all the way through the universities. Our kids are being taught pacifism and their need for and right to safe spaces. A large number of our universities won't even allow ROTC on campus.
I guess my final question is, if you're concerned about any of this why aren't you concerned when conservatives -- the people willing to protect you -- are shouted down and denigrated at our universities?
In the end, I'm convinced we've reached the point where it's going to take a wakeup call, something like a Great Depression or a World War (hopefully without nukes) to change what's gradually happening to the US. The question then will be whether or not the US can survive. If it doesn't, the free world will go down with it.
I'm 88, so I'll have no personal involvement in what's coming, but I have a flock of grandkids and great-grands. I worry about them. On the other hand, I know it'll be their problem. Not mine, just as Korea and Vietnam were mine. But I hope they'll have help.
-
In a few basic points:
1. The US is a major contributor, but not the sole provider
2. The nonsense about NATO funding has been debunked so many times it's ridiculous
3. A changed paradigm that moves away from peace through superior firepower would be better (and we've been heading that way generally, although I see some hurdles at the moment)
4. The biggest threat I see is from the US because it might fracture because you have hyperpartisanship running rampant and your policies are driven by soundbite-sized dogma from one side or the other of the political fence, focused on immediate feedback and not long term policy (China, as always, are the masters of the long game, and Putin ain't bad either)
5. The fact that you see a particular side of politics as the security for the future as opposed to looking at genuine, long-term, deep policies of a nation as a whole, reflects 4 above and remains an expression of extremism which is the single biggest threat globally
-
Hi Phil.
1. I didn't say it was the sole provider. I said it's what holds it all together.
2. Give me a valid example of a "debunking."
3. Exactly what I'm talking about. In war there's no getting away from superior firepower. You're illustrating my point.
4. If you believe that, you don't understand the US.
5. That's almost exactly what Churchill's opponents were saying prior to WW II.
-
Hi Russ,
1. That was the implication of the way you phrased it, intended or not. I'd say it's not even holding it all together, but it remains a major contributor. The end of the cold war changed the balance.
2. There are literally dozens in threads throughout this forum, but let's start with the fact that the agreed targets weren't there when NATO was setup (which you said, perhaps just a phrasing error?), the targets have not yet come to their deadline, and the nonsense about the US outspending vastly looks at total US expenditure instead of just US NATO expenditure.
3. That's not true. Smart, better, resources, etc. all come into it, plus we're not in a shooting war and the best strategy avoids one (take Reagan's move to bankrupt the USSR through an arms race).
4. I understand the US quite well, I just have a different perspective and the problem is you're not at all open to consideration that you might not be 100% correct. Makes discussion difficult if not impossible.
5. You're entirely missing the point or being deliberately obtuse and misleading. The situations are not comparable, I'm in no way apologising for anyone/thing, I'm pointing out that you are basing "survival" (seems like the most apt term for what you seem to be trying to convey) on ideology alone.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"Long After Protests, Students Shun the University of Missouri"
It seems that the title and the quotes suggest that the current low enrollments are caused by the student protests and ousting the president of the University.
But I think that overlooks what I think is another important factor, which is that before these protests the university was the scene of several racial incidents, with online threats against black students and faculty, disruption of performance rehearsals by African Americans and which finally lead to a real disgusting incident of a swastika had been smeared in feces on a dormitory bathroom at Missouri (these facts can all be found in the article or following one link).
Obviously we don't know what goes on in the minds of the hard working middle class parents and to-be students not enrolling at the University of Missouri but my gut feel says it's not only the student protests and and ousting of the president.
-
Let me ask you guys something. Do you believe the United States is, for the moment at least, providing stability for the free world, which includes not only what we know as the West, but also free Asian nations such as Japan, Thailand and Taiwan, as well as Israel in the Middle East? Let's call that collection the free world.
I don't want to get too carried away with the comparison, but I see the US at the moment providing approximately the same kind of anchor for the free world that Britain provided for the West until WW II.
The US's current situation in world affairs devolves from its ability during WW II to provide the Allies with massive amounts of materiel that allowed us to win that war and from its ability after the war to provide immense financial and material assistance for the reconstruction of Europe and Asia. The US then went on, for the next seventy some years to provide defense for the free world against the Soviet Union and its minions. It's still doing that. Most NATO nations provide only a fraction of the contributions to their defense they agreed to when NATO was formed. The US constantly makes up the difference.
But at the same time I see the ability of the US to continue as the stabilizer for the free world fraying at the edges as we take on more debt, let our military degenerate as a result of political pressure from the left, and become more and more apathetic about, and even resistant to the demands made upon us for our own defense.
Nothing lasts forever, and the US isn't going to last forever, any more than Britain or Rome or Byzantium did. And that's a scary thought, or at least it should be if you're one of the societies depending on the US for your defense.
If your answer to my first question was "yes," then you ought to be concerned by what's going on with US education, starting in grade school and running all the way through the universities. Our kids are being taught pacifism and their need for and right to safe spaces. A large number of our universities won't even allow ROTC on campus.
I guess my final question is, if you're concerned about any of this why aren't you concerned when conservatives -- the people willing to protect you -- are shouted down and denigrated at our universities?
In the end, I'm convinced we've reached the point where it's going to take a wakeup call, something like a Great Depression or a World War (hopefully without nukes) to change what's gradually happening to the US. The question then will be whether or not the US can survive. If it doesn't, the free world will go down with it.
I'm 88, so I'll have no personal involvement in what's coming, but I have a flock of grandkids and great-grands. I worry about them. On the other hand, I know it'll be their problem. Not mine, just as Korea and Vietnam were mine. But I hope they'll have help.
Russ, this is quite far away from this discussion, so why don't you start a new thread asking this question. Now two almost unrelated discussions will start running together and will become very hard to follow.
-
I do not know why Rob, they did not asked me to subscribe (and I am not already their subscriber). I will send you a pdf of the article via email.
Thanks for the pdf - I am quite impressed with the issue of the smeared bathroom: could these folks be learning from the Irish experience in H Block?
I wonder if the medium was produced on demand, or imported prior to the event. Either way, a bit of a mess absolutely guaranteed to raise a stink.
Oh well, students will apparently be students. Just another reason for avoiding the gregarious set. You know, after nine years of widowerhood, casual conversations and random coffees in various bars with expats in similar circumstances or just other forms of cultural isolation, the impression grows that isolation is not that bad an alternative to artificial, superficial bondings. Those cost time, nervous tension, possible unwanted obligations and money (sometimes both connected), whereas freedom from them provides time to waste in less stressful directions such as looking at pictures, listening to music and making the occasional post to some website or other. I suppose the beauty of Internet conversation is that you can do it at your own convenience and speed.
I really think that the single, most important part of such conversation has to be this: express only what one would say directly to another in a personal, direct conversation. That way, you can probably remain true to your own nature and conserve the mutual respect that conversation should entail.
Failing the above, one may as well just go for a walk and/or adopt a pet for which one has to bear no direct reponsibility. But beware: even that can grow its own sense of obligation, as I discovered with the white mare: before we met I never, ever, found myself wandering about with a couple of carrots in a bag.
-
Russ, this is quite far away from this discussion, so why don't you start a new thread asking this question. Now two almost unrelated discussions will start running together and will become very hard to follow.
What I just posted is far away from "the psychology of progressive hostility," Pieter? I'd say it's pretty much spot on. At the rate it's growing, progressive hostility and the takeover of our education system by progressive hostility is going to be the death of Western civilization. At the moment, any thought that runs counter to the "progressive" agenda is shouted down. History's great thinkers and philosophers are kicked out of "progressive" courses. It comes down to Santayana and "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." Progressive hostility turns up its nose at history.
But you've got a point about a new thread. This one has exhausted itself. And I'm tired of it. I'm neither going to start a new thread nor continue with this one. When it come to politics we're all talking past each other. Nobody's going to convince anybody.
Back to photography, which, by the way, you do well. I think photography's something we can talk about and agree on.
-
But you've got a point about a new thread. This one has exhausted itself. And I'm tired of it. I'm neither going to start a new thread nor continue with this one. When it come to politics we're all talking past each other. Nobody's going to convince anybody.
Back to photography, which, by the way, you do well. I think photography's something we can talk about and agree on.
Russ, I don't think the point of these threads is to convince anybody of something. It's a way among what I would call "photography friends" to exchange ideas that broaden our view. Even though the two of us seldom agree on key political issues I still pick up ideas from you to hone my own ideas about an issue. I think this is always valuable, unless of course one is convinced they are 100% right and have the 20/20 vision already and everybody who doesn't agree with them is stupid.
Thanks for the comment on my photography, which I agree is a much easier topic to discuss and exchange ideas on.
-
What bemuses me, amongst many other things, of course, is how left-wing thinking becomes known as "progressive". It is, if anything, entirely the opposite of being progressive and smacks to me of old, long-discredited, enforced political cant aimed fairly and squarely at turning this contemporary (and if that's proves too dificult, then the next period of this one) society into a totalitarian dystopia reminiscent of nothing more than what we can see already in the Russia, Cuba and NK of today, where the individual becomes a cypher and only the enslaved survival of the anthill counts.
In the West, it's the deeply established political root of all the nonsense about equality, fairness, entitlement and most of the other theoretically wonderful crap designed to remove personal accountablity from the gamut of the normal expectations of human beings. Succeed in that, and you have reduced mankind to the level of the farm animal which, as the poor old sod ends up in the abattoir, might unexpectedly prove not such a bad thing after all. Should you feel you like the idea of life as a farm aninmal, that is.
Personally, I'd rather keep what freedoms of expression and movement that I still have. Sadly, I have to accept that courtesy Brexit I may soon be losing at least one of those qualities that I currently enjoy.
;-(
Rob
-
But you've got a point about a new thread. This one has exhausted itself. And I'm tired of it. I'm neither going to start a new thread nor continue with this one. When it come to politics we're all talking past each other. Nobody's going to convince anybody.
Back to photography, which, by the way, you do well. I think photography's something we can talk about and agree on.
I've only just come to this thread and I've not come here to be convinced of anything. But I do want to learn, and Russ, even though I often disagree with much in your postings, particularly your strong emphasis on military might and guns to solve the worlds problems, I do enjoy hearing your point of view. You may be 88 but please do not get tired of discussing politics or presenting your thoughts.
Jim
-
Thanks, Jim. I'm not going away any time soon. At least I hope I'm not. The reason I emphasize military capability may have something to do with the fact that I've been to war three times and I've seen some demonstrations of how all that works. I am finished with arguing on this thread, though I'll still be watching it.
-
I've only just come to this thread and I've not come here to be convinced of anything. But I do want to learn, and Russ, even though I often disagree with much in your postings, particularly your strong emphasis on military might and guns to solve the worlds problems, I do enjoy hearing your point of view. You may be 88 but please do not get tired of discussing politics or presenting your thoughts.
Jim
I'm not Russ, but I don't see his reasoning goes like that, which I feel suggests an expeditionary approach. The guns and might are more to preserve the peace, to keep crazy dictators at least partially leashed and out of our faces.
You don't manage any of that naked.
Rob
-
... I don't think the point of these threads is to convince anybody of something. It's a way among what I would call "photography friends" to exchange ideas that broaden our view...
(https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IMG_3706.png)
-
Thanks, James. That sounds like a well-reasoned argument. And "studies" certainly tell us what's going on. After all, figures don't lie. (Which ignores the fact that liars figure.)
But let me go on to the crux. Why do I restrict my definition of "violence" to campuses where what you consider to be "right-leaning" speakers are harassed?
I'll be 88 on Friday, and I've watched the whole thing unfold. I think the main problem with our society nowadays is our universities. They were taken over in the sixties by left-leaning -- I'm tempted to call them "crazies," but I don't want to argue about that. Many of them were hippies, and a few were people who'd not only disrupted our society, but were criminals who'd been let off the hook.
When I was in high school we had rifle teams. Many people owned firearms, but shootings -- especially mass shootings -- were so rare they almost were nonexistent. Near the end of the century I watched the "deinstitutionalization" of mental misfits. I've told the story of the poor woman in Colorado Springs who used to spend her days wandering around town pulling her wheeled suitcase, sitting most of the day slouched on a bench, depending on a couple local restaurants' largess for food. There were plenty of others in the town, like the poor gap-toothed drifter who saw my camera, came up to me and said, "Take my picture," and when I gave him a print of it about a week later broke into tears and said, "That's the first time somebody's taken my picture in twenty years."
Now, these people were -- at least at the moment -- harmless, but needed to be out of society and in a place where they could be cared for and watched, not only for their own good but for the safety of society at large. But it isn't going to happen, and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a direct result of our unwillingness to deal with the problem.
What happened? The people who went to war in WW II grew up in a world scarred by the Great Depression. When the war was over and they settled down again, they swore their kids never would have to face the kinds of hardships they'd faced, so they supported those kids well beyond the time when they should have been out of the house, and they made sure gathering places like schools were "gun free zones." They did their best to remove any irritants or obstacles the kids might face. The result was what we called the "boomers." The boomers carried the idea that kids shouldn't have to face life head-on far beyond where their parents had carried it.
So now we have a couple generations that aren't willing or able to face the world as it is. Roughly half of the group we call millennials believe socialism is better than capitalism, though even a simple, quick examination of history refutes that idea. Sure, capitalism has its problems. but to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the rest.
The bottom line? Our universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem.
I have no idea how old you are James. N/A doesn't tell me much. Same thing with your location. If I knew whether "Local Time" means local for you or local for me I might be able to guess. But why should I have to do that. In the end, all I have is your collection of assertions and references to "studies." That doesn't cut it.
Hi there Russ - Happy Thursday to you! Sorry for the delay in reply, but, well, I've had to work. Despite being somewhat to the left of center, I do have businesses to run ;)
Anyway, a lot to unpack here, but you made two fundamental points that I agree with. First, I think your concern about the decline in the identification and treatment of mental illness is spot on. In fact, the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/05/09/getting-the-mentally-ill-out-of-jail-and-off-the-streets/we-need-better-funding-for-mental-health-services) noted the factors that have exacerbated this problem a few years back. Their conclusion: by forcing mental health funding out of the federal government and onto the states without adequate funding, Kennedy started the problem in 1963. The Reagan-era move toward block grants (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/20/kennedys-vision-mental-health/3100001/) removed oversight about how and where those funds were used, so states were basically given a chunk of money that was "supposed" to be used on public mental health. The result, especially when combined with the recession in the late 2000s was predictable. Notably, this is one "strategy" that some folks are advocating as an alternative to the ACA. Let's hope they can learn from what happened last time it was tried...
As for your contention that the boomers screwed things up, it's not an uncommon argument (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt). You would probably agree with this criticism of that generation, I think, from the link above:
I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve [the boomers] done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is.
Here's another analysis (https://www.barkleyus.com/insights/baby-boomer-parents-molded-millennial-generation/) that we probably both find some truth in.
But, alas, here is where we part ways. Your assertion that, "...universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem." just doesn't hold water.
It's a nice statement of your *feelings* (ironic, given the original subject of this thread), but there's no meat to the assertion beyond the idea that you don't like the way some kids are acting. You dismiss my data - surveys, research, professional analysis - because it doesn't mesh with your preconceived notion, but you offer nothing in return except that you think you know it to be true. I'm open to the alternatives - truly - but your belief that this is the general state of the left stands in direct contrast to aggregated data compiled and analyzed by professionals. There simply no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that, despite some scary anecdotes (and I'm 100% with you again here - I find the behavior at Berkeley, for example, both repulsive and frightening for what it could portend if this was in fact the new normal), this is what we are likely to get from the vast majority of youth, either conservative OR liberal, ergo I have no fear that it portends anything approaching the Inquisition, so perhaps in your mind I AM part if the problem...
But let's talk about the Inquisition for a moment... Torquemada was a conservative, and the Inquisition was a violently conservative movement, so I'm frankly surprised you used that as an example (I would have used the the Reign of Terror, but I digress). As I'm sure you know, the Inquisition was a means by which the Spanish crown desired to root out diversity of religion and enforce social and cultural homogeneity. The Inquisition had the full backing of the crown and the Roman Catholic church. Muslims were denied freedom of religion, and Jews were expelled or forced to convert to Catholicism (ironic, because as I recall, one of the precursors to the inquisition was that there was an issue with "fake" conversions amongst non-catholics, but I'm a bit fuzzy on that). Now I get your point - you see ANTIFA types using violence to enforce a certain thought structure, and you fear what it could become. Let's be crystal clear - I do too, but these "students" *are NOT* indicative of the general state of left-of center politics, as I've showed you with aggregated data earlier in the thread.
Let me bring up one more point, and that's of students in general. By and large, they're emotional idiots. They say and do stupid things. We all know this. It doesn't mean they can't come up with some brilliant ideas (Einstein published special relativity at what, 25?) but they are, as a group, emotionally immature and prone to goofy outbursts. It's been like that from time eternal, and always will be. (There's an actual biolgical reason for that!) (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051)
This is NOT a new complaint (http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything), by the way... So when kids shout down, harass or otherwise plug their tender ears, I think they're wrong and I don't like that they're indulged one little bit, but it's hardly the end of civilization because they will grow up, and they literally will not operate in the same way, mentally.
Finally, you asked about me. If you think it will help you understand me, I'm happy to oblige. I'm 45 - neither boomer nor millennial. I live in Austin, which is the liberal part of Texas, but I live in a more conservative part of town (in Austin you would read that as a genuine mix of political viewpoints). I'm an entrepreneur who's done well enough to buy a Phase One kit, so I have some minor aptitude, and I have a degree from one of Texas' best private universities that's not Rice. My degree is in history (American, colonial concentration) and communications/media, so I'm somewhat qualified to discuss both the origins, meanings and implications of our shared history as well as the modern day methodologies of the way the media presents (and sometimes distorts) the public discussion (the latter both by education and profession). I believe in an implied Constitutional right to privacy, and I believe the greatest threat today is not to the 1st (or 2nd) Amendments, but to the 4th and, because of strict constructionism, the 9th. I can tell you that one of the first (and worst) real threats to our Bill of Rights didn't come in the 1960s, but rather in 1798 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts), from John Adams of all people, and that his opponents used the power of the free press to fight him, resulting in the imprisonment of a writer and all that that implies, both then and now.
Etc. Etc. ;)
You may reply to this, and you may not, since you've said you won't be responding any more. If not, again, I appreciate your willingness to move to a more interactive discussion, and I appreciate you sharing your point of view. I respect your experience, I acknowledge your obvious love of our shared country and way of life. I thank you for your part in making that possible for me to enjoy. We disagree, pointedly, on the reasons for current and near-future danger and I've showed you why. Perhaps in the future you will find some data, studies or peer-reviewed work that supports your concerns. When you do, I'd love it if you would share them. As I said before, I am truly always willing to learn.
-
In the West, it's the deeply established political root of all the nonsense about equality, fairness, entitlement and most of the other theoretically wonderful crap designed to remove personal accountablity from the gamut of the normal expectations of human beings. Succeed in that, and you have reduced mankind to the level of the farm animal which, as the poor old sod ends up in the abattoir, might unexpectedly prove not such a bad thing after all. Should you feel you like the idea of life as a farm aninmal, that is.
Personally, I'd rather keep what freedoms of expression and movement that I still have. Sadly, I have to accept that courtesy Brexit I may soon be losing at least one of those qualities that I currently enjoy.
I think you're still not understanding what (rational) people mean by "equality of opportunity." It's not about pretending that we're all the same, or that we should all equally enjoy the combined fruits of (someone else's) labor, so much as it is about *access* to opportunity, so perhaps "equality" is the wrong word. I just killed an hour responding to Russ above, so I don't have time to expand on it right now, but I think it's an interesting topic for the future.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember in another thread you expressing that having access to healthcare should simply be a matter of fact, no?
-
I just can't understand why folks assess the condition of a sector of society based on events from only what they heard in the news decades ago and know for certain that it can be applied to the rest of the billions of people around the world. It took only one bad actor Manson to make all hippies criminals by default and that there is the result of an educated society that throws truth and facts out the window so they can feel safe.
The good old days were only as good as far as those who could see from their own back yard. The media hadn't caught up to being everywhere, no security cameras feeds to post on YouTube to make sure everyone knows not all is good around the world. And statistics weren't available as much as they are today.
And yet even today with all the educated masses, we still get people with knee jerk based POV's on one small sector of society and apply it to everything that smacks of liberal or progressive. No one knows these people, not even the conservatives. I don't know these people so I'm not going to judge without knowing all the facts.
Facts? Facts aren't based on anecdotes some one sees in their nearby community. Just getting folks to be aware that the bad things happening in their neighborhood is happening in other parts of the world to a certain degree is good enough to keep them from overreacting and judging too harshly. But some folks just like to base their overall assertions on the world from the narrow view of their own backyard. Again, these are educated people with degrees that still view the world like this.
I don't know from what political spectrum one leans toward that would make them think they can expand another person's POV with assertions on how society works based on such a lack of real world data collected by a wide range of people across the globe. The world and even one's own country of origin is not everyone's own backyard and the truth doesn't reside there either. The truth resides in getting all the information and not from what one sees in the news.
What good is an education if it's going to produce people with POV's on the world based only on what they saw and now see around them as a supposedly thinking adult?
There's no progress with that kind of awareness about the world. A progressive person would know this but would find it impossible to convince a person who saw their progressive nature as a threat to their world which doesn't make any sense at all.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/15/not-welcome-here-amazon-faces-growing-resistance-to-its-second-home
"Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home"
That proposition has united an ideologically diverse group of dissenters to Amazon’s grand HQ2 competition, ranging from rightwing organizations linked to the Koch brothers to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Groups and individuals that would normally agree only to mutual disdain and distrust have somehow come around to the same conclusion: that Amazon’s decision to pit 20 cities against each other in a fight to host a future hub is a bad deal for everyone except Amazon.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/15/not-welcome-here-amazon-faces-growing-resistance-to-its-second-home
"Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home"
Weird. Cites compete for corporations all. the. time. It' just usually not so public. I mean, cities have budgets specifically dedicated to this, and tax breaks to allocate just for this reason.
-
I think you're still not understanding what (rational) people mean by "equality of opportunity." It's not about pretending that we're all the same, or that we should all equally enjoy the combined fruits of (someone else's) labor, so much as it is about *access* to opportunity, so perhaps "equality" is the wrong word. I just killed an hour responding to Russ above, so I don't have time to expand on it right now, but I think it's an interesting topic for the future.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember in another thread you expressing that having access to healthcare should simply be a matter of fact, no?
I did, and I believe that to be amongst the better ideas that Britain came to espouse.
It gets paid for out of taxes and insurance contributions, and is a really worthwhile concept. We have it here in Spain, too, and in combination with the private services, it has been keeping me alive over the past fifteen years or so.
It isn't based on income - all are entitled to use it - and the choice of private medical services exists in parallel. We paid for private medical care for many years; six months before her death, my wife was rushed to the closer state hospital because of her pain, instead of to the private one where the rest of her treatment had been carried out, a journey twice as long. Her treatment there, in the public hospital, was so good that she suggested we stop the very expensive private medical insurance payments. Which we did.
Health care should be, in my view, a common right because we all face the need for such services at one stage or another. Before I was sixty-five, the only occasions when I set foot in hospitals were to visit other people. Luck eventually runs out...
Does that signify, then, that I feel a desire to vote for the left? Certainly not. A good idea has no political colour. It is what it is, and that's it. An irritating thing about party politics is that it usually takes the stand that everything about the other side is bad; the pragmatic approach would be to assume the best features of them all and run with that.
Rob
P.S. You and Russ both write very well indeed, and reading the two of you is always a pleasure.
-
From what I've learned as a politically active advocate to preserve my local pristine spring fed river from the pollution enablers of outfitters and beer distributors, money must have its own political party.
It turned out I wasted my time when I found out it was all due to our city manager's inability to negotiate a deal with the river cleanup contractors TOO PAY THEM MORE MONEY so they could employ a scuba team to pick up the tons of garbage at the bottom of the river left by thousands of river goers.
Omission of facts is the same as lying IMO. So I have a feeling there is a whole lot of facts omitted in what seems a complex bidding situation with Amazon. I still can't figure out how they assess Bezo's wealth from a company that's just started to turn a profit.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/15/not-welcome-here-amazon-faces-growing-resistance-to-its-second-home
"Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home"
I am seriously surprised an antitrust lawsuit has not yet been filed against Amazon.
I think it is enviable at this point.
-
I did, and I believe that to be amongst the better ideas that Britain came to espouse.
It gets paid for out of taxes and insurance contributions, and is a really worthwhile concept. We have it here in Spain, too, and in combination with the private services, it has been keeping me alive over the past fifteen years or so.
It isn't based on income - all are entitled to use it - and the choice of private medical services exists in parallel. We paid for private medical care for many years; six months before her death, my wife was rushed to the closer state hospital because of her pain, instead of to the private one where the rest of her treatment had been carried out, a journey twice as long. Her treatment there, in the public hospital, was so good that she suggested we stop the very expensive private medical insurance payments. Which we did.
Health care should be, in my view, a common right because we all face the need for such services at one stage or another. Before I was sixty-five, the only occasions when I set foot in hospitals were to visit other people. Luck eventually runs out...
Does that signify, then, that I feel a desire to vote for the left? Certainly not. A good idea has no political colour. It is what it is, and that's it. An irritating thing about party politics is that it usually takes the stand that everything about the other side is bad; the pragmatic approach would be to assume the best features of them all and run with that.
Rob
P.S. You and Russ both write very well indeed, and reading the two of you is always a pleasure.
Rob, that means a lot coming from someone who is generally among the most eloquent conversationalists here. Thank you :)
The reason I was confirming your opinion on state-provided health care is precisely because I know that it does not mean you are necessarily a left-leaning voter (by virtue of your comments on other issues). I was hoping to illustrate exactly what you said - that a good idea is a good idea, and we shouldn't be so willing to march in lockstep with our preconceived ideas of what leaning left (or right) on any specific issue means for our temperament, our intelligence, or our patriotism.
-
Hi there Russ - Happy Thursday to you! Sorry for the delay in reply, but, well, I've had to work. Despite being somewhat to the left of center, I do have businesses to run ;)
Anyway, a lot to unpack here, but you made two fundamental points that I agree with. First, I think your concern about the decline in the identification and treatment of mental illness is spot on. In fact, the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/05/09/getting-the-mentally-ill-out-of-jail-and-off-the-streets/we-need-better-funding-for-mental-health-services) noted the factors that have exacerbated this problem a few years back. Their conclusion: by forcing mental health funding out of the federal government and onto the states without adequate funding, Kennedy started the problem in 1963. The Reagan-era move toward block grants (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/20/kennedys-vision-mental-health/3100001/) removed oversight about how and where those funds were used, so states were basically given a chunk of money that was "supposed" to be used on public mental health. The result, especially when combined with the recession in the late 2000s was predictable. Notably, this is one "strategy" that some folks are advocating as an alternative to the ACA. Let's hope they can learn from what happened last time it was tried...
As for your contention that the boomers screwed things up, it's not an uncommon argument (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt). You would probably agree with this criticism of that generation, I think, from the link above:
Here's another analysis (https://www.barkleyus.com/insights/baby-boomer-parents-molded-millennial-generation/) that we probably both find some truth in.
But, alas, here is where we part ways. Your assertion that, "...universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem." just doesn't hold water.
It's a nice statement of your *feelings* (ironic, given the original subject of this thread), but there's no meat to the assertion beyond the idea that you don't like the way some kids are acting. You dismiss my data - surveys, research, professional analysis - because it doesn't mesh with your preconceived notion, but you offer nothing in return except that you think you know it to be true. I'm open to the alternatives - truly - but your belief that this is the general state of the left stands in direct contrast to aggregated data compiled and analyzed by professionals. There simply no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that, despite some scary anecdotes (and I'm 100% with you again here - I find the behavior at Berkeley, for example, both repulsive and frightening for what it could portend if this was in fact the new normal), this is what we are likely to get from the vast majority of youth, either conservative OR liberal, ergo I have no fear that it portends anything approaching the Inquisition, so perhaps in your mind I AM part if the problem...
But let's talk about the Inquisition for a moment... Torquemada was a conservative, and the Inquisition was a violently conservative movement, so I'm frankly surprised you used that as an example (I would have used the the Reign of Terror, but I digress). As I'm sure you know, the Inquisition was a means by which the Spanish crown desired to root out diversity of religion and enforce social and cultural homogeneity. The Inquisition had the full backing of the crown and the Roman Catholic church. Muslims were denied freedom of religion, and Jews were expelled or forced to convert to Catholicism (ironic, because as I recall, one of the precursors to the inquisition was that there was an issue with "fake" conversions amongst non-catholics, but I'm a bit fuzzy on that). Now I get your point - you see ANTIFA types using violence to enforce a certain thought structure, and you fear what it could become. Let's be crystal clear - I do too, but these "students" *are NOT* indicative of the general state of left-of center politics, as I've showed you with aggregated data earlier in the thread.
Let me bring up one more point, and that's of students in general. By and large, they're emotional idiots. They say and do stupid things. We all know this. It doesn't mean they can't come up with some brilliant ideas (Einstein published special relativity at what, 25?) but they are, as a group, emotionally immature and prone to goofy outbursts. It's been like that from time eternal, and always will be. (There's an actual biolgical reason for that!) (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051)
This is NOT a new complaint (http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything), by the way... So when kids shout down, harass or otherwise plug their tender ears, I think they're wrong and I don't like that they're indulged one little bit, but it's hardly the end of civilization because they will grow up, and they literally will not operate in the same way, mentally.
Finally, you asked about me. If you think it will help you understand me, I'm happy to oblige. I'm 45 - neither boomer nor millennial. I live in Austin, which is the liberal part of Texas, but I live in a more conservative part of town (in Austin you would read that as a genuine mix of political viewpoints). I'm an entrepreneur who's done well enough to buy a Phase One kit, so I have some minor aptitude, and I have a degree from one of Texas' best private universities that's not Rice. My degree is in history (American, colonial concentration) and communications/media, so I'm somewhat qualified to discuss both the origins, meanings and implications of our shared history as well as the modern day methodologies of the way the media presents (and sometimes distorts) the public discussion (the latter both by education and profession). I believe in an implied Constitutional right to privacy, and I believe the greatest threat today is not to the 1st (or 2nd) Amendments, but to the 4th and, because of strict constructionism, the 9th. I can tell you that one of the first (and worst) real threats to our Bill of Rights didn't come in the 1960s, but rather in 1798 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts), from John Adams of all people, and that his opponents used the power of the free press to fight him, resulting in the imprisonment of a writer and all that that implies, both then and now.
Etc. Etc. ;)
You may reply to this, and you may not, since you've said you won't be responding any more. If not, again, I appreciate your willingness to move to a more interactive discussion, and I appreciate you sharing your point of view. I respect your experience, I acknowledge your obvious love of our shared country and way of life. I thank you for your part in making that possible for me to enjoy. We disagree, pointedly, on the reasons for current and near-future danger and I've showed you why. Perhaps in the future you will find some data, studies or peer-reviewed work that supports your concerns. When you do, I'd love it if you would share them. As I said before, I am truly always willing to learn.
Hi James,
Thanks for the well reasoned and quiet response to my not so quiet provocation.
Wish we could sit down together for a drink and a talk. I see we agree on a whole lot of things. The only place I see serious disagreement is in the direction of the United States' development. You see it as a level plain. I see it as a downward slope. But of course, I'm an old guy, and I guess old guys always see things going downhill. Actually, that's not really true. I think we can recover, and I think we will, but I also think it's going to take a serious shock for people to see that they need to focus on the future of the country in order for the West to survive instead of on finding a safe personal space.
I have four sons. The oldest is 64. The youngest is 57. I tell you this so you'll understand that I've lived the late sixties and early seventies in very close contact with people who were just in and just out of the boomer era. My oldest was into the hippy thing in a big way for a while. The others pretty much escaped that. Then came nine grandsons and eight granddaughters. So I've had close contact with millennials. Now we're working on the so far fifteen gen-z great-grands.
I look at these kids and their history and I know the future can be salvaged. All four of my sons are successful, two of them very successful. My grands are doing well. At this point the greats are just being cute, but they're all solid people because of their parents.
Two of my daughters-in-law are very far left on the political spectrum. I have several close friends who are fifteen years younger than I am. Boomers. We agree on a broad spectrum of things, but often disagree on politics. Still, we can work together happily, have lunch or a drink together and things never get out of hand. I've learned a lot from these guys, though we still disagree on politics.
It's possible.
By the way, I lived in Austin for a couple years while I was stationed at Bergstrom. Loved it. It was still a pretty small town then. Not now.
-
Hi James,
Thanks for the well reasoned and quiet response to my not so quiet provocation.
Wish we could sit down together for a drink and a talk. I see we agree on a whole lot of things. The only place I see serious disagreement is in the direction of the United States' development. You see it as a level plain. I see it as a downward slope. But of course, I'm an old guy, and I guess old guys always see things going downhill. Actually, that's not really true. I think we can recover, and I think we will, but I also think it's going to take a serious shock for people to see that they need to focus on the future of the country in order for the West to survive instead of on finding a safe personal space.
I have four sons. The oldest is 64. The youngest is 57. I tell you this so you'll understand that I've lived the late sixties and early seventies in very close contact with people who were just in and just out of the boomer era. My oldest was into the hippy thing in a big way for a while. The others pretty much escaped that. Then came nine grandsons and eight granddaughters. So I've had close contact with millennials. Now we're working on the so far fifteen gen-z great-grands.
I look at these kids and their history and I know the future can be salvaged. All four of my sons are successful, two of them very successful. My grands are doing well. At this point the greats are just being cute, but they're all solid people because of their parents.
Two of my daughters-in-law are very far left on the political spectrum. I have several close friends who are fifteen years younger than I am. Boomers. We agree on a broad spectrum of things, but often disagree on politics. Still, we can work together happily, have lunch or a drink together and things never get out of hand. I've learned a lot from these guys, though we still disagree on politics.
It's possible.
By the way, I lived in Austin for a couple years while I was stationed at Bergstrom. Loved it. It was still a pretty small town then. Not now.
No, not small at all any more. It's changed dramatically even since I moved here 10 years ago, and Bergstrom is now a major regional airport (and bursting at its seams even so - it's currently undergoing renovation/expansion. Again.) But we're lucky enough to have some property not too far from downtown but still quiet. I like the options the city presents and don't plan to leave anytime soon (unless my wife suddenly changes her mind and agrees to move to Santa Fe with me).
I do get down your way once in a great while, and it would be a delight to sit down with you at some point if the opportunity presents. I get to Chicago somewhat more often, and Slobodan would be on my list as well. Weirdly, I have some colleagues in Bosnia (and I've spent some time in Banja Luka) and I'd love to learn more about that part of the world from another perspective. And hey, I think y'all both have a great eye for images. :)
So I think, like you, I'll step out of this thread now. Perhaps we can be an example of, well, something better than the status quo here ;)
PS - it's amusing that one of your kids was a big hippie. That must have been interesting for you :D
-
Everyone who disagrees with me is either evil (conservatives) or stupid (liberals). ;)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/ (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/)
https://blog.politicsmeanspolitics.com/its-come-to-this-the-republican-party-is-evil-e63b7d7fb2c8 (https://blog.politicsmeanspolitics.com/its-come-to-this-the-republican-party-is-evil-e63b7d7fb2c8)
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/o/6/3/q/4/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1o62v3.png/1517433322009.jpg)
-
So now we have a couple generations that aren't willing or able to face the world as it is. Roughly half of the group we call millennials believe socialism is better than capitalism, though even a simple, quick examination of history refutes that idea. Sure, capitalism has its problems. but to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the rest.
Except that socialism isn't opposed to capitalism. At all.
Communism is.
A large majority of citizens in European Socialist countries believe that, on top of a free market where initiative is rewarded with financial gains, there is a need to ensure that a minimum level of wealth is guaranteed for all citizens. This is directly derived from Christian values.
Indeed, my experience in many countries has shown that the overall quality of living in a country is directly driven by the level of "health" of its weakest citizens, which itself is pretty much driven by their ability to make a decent living. The level of crime can pretty much be perfectly correlated to this. The better the condition of the poorest citizens, the less crime there is. And that does include mass shootings too.
You'll note that today, Europe is a far more active champion of free markets than the US. Yet, most Europeans believe that letting the poorest die on the street without decent healthcare isn't representative of what civilization can and should do. This is just a matter of prioritizing the good of the community over one's own, which in the end ends up providing many benefits for the individual as well. Starting with risk associated to crime.
So, really, nobody is against capitalism. The debate is how capitalism can be made to work for the majority of the population and not for a few thousand super rich families only. Overall it does work, but there are huge challenges ahead of us. Continuing to behave as if our own little person were the center of the universe is going to take us to a disaster that will affect our children most.
The time of selfishness is over.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Except that socialism isn't opposed to capitalism. At all.
Of course it is, Bernard. Socialism in a clean form believes the means of production should be controlled by the state. Communism is simply the totalitarian extreme of that basic belief. The EU countries and the Scandinavians aren't really socialist countries, they're a hybrid that works for them, for reasons that really don't apply to the U.S.
You say, "The debate is how capitalism can be made to work for the majority of the population and not for a few thousand super rich families only." And the EU may have an answer to this, for the EU, as long as they are allowed to continue pretending that a totalitarian, aggressive, imperialist Russia doesn't exist. They've been allowed to pretend this because they lived under the US military umbrella. That umbrella has cost the US dearly -- it's one reason that we don't have cradle-to-grave medical care, like the EU, why our infrastructure is so poor, unlike the EU, and so on -- we've been paying for a military protection that has successfully (and foolishly, IMHO) argued that we have to be prepared to fight two major wars simultaneously, that we h ave to "take care" of our allies in Europe. If the US pulls back and says "screw the world," and the EU finds itself having to pay for its own protection against Russian imperialism, they may find that universal medical care and terrific levels of infrastructure financing don't come so easily.
You say, "The time of selfishness is over." Unfortunately, that will never be true.
IMHO, the EU has traded an economic elite for a political elite that makes rules for its subjects (and I do mean subjects) almost without regard to what those people wish. That's one reason for Brexit and perhaps the most powerful one. But, Europe is Europe, and they get to decide how to run their countries.
I think the US also has to move more to a hybrid system, but one in which the default is to what you call capitalism, although that's a terrible word for it -- economic "freedom" would be better. Most US businesses aren't capitalist; that is, they aren't based on the accumulation of capital by large industries controlled by stockholders. They are small family businesses. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surprising-statistics-about-small-businesses/#4a56acf15ec8) I would agree that the concentration of income and resources among a small economic elite is a threat, but one reasonably easily solved, if we had an honest political system. That is, there would be a very steep estate (inheritance) tax that would radically diminish the inheritances of the very rich, while still allowing the most innovative persons to accumulate and spend vast wealth during their lifetimes. By radical, I mean a tax of, say, 99% of everything over the first $25 million -- so there'd be no inheritance billionaires setting up what amount to economic aristocracies.
-
John,
I believe we mostly agree. I’ll respond more in details when I find a keyboard.
Except for one thing perhaps. I believe that the military spendings in the US are mostly motivated by the influence of the weapon lobby and are way exagerated compare to actual needs, even with real threats.
Besides these spendings have benefited hugely many civilian businesses and end up being state funding of private enterprise just like Europe subsidises some companies.
As far as Russia goes, it is a complex topic. I believe that antagonizing them will end up being a self-realizinh prophecy and once again, who would that benefit besides arm dealers?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And the EU may have an answer to this, for the EU, as long as they are allowed to continue pretending that a totalitarian, aggressive, imperialist Russia doesn't exist. They've been allowed to pretend this because they lived under the US military umbrella. That umbrella has cost the US dearly -- it's one reason that we don't have cradle-to-grave medical care, like the EU, why our infrastructure is so poor, unlike the EU, and so on -- we've been paying for a military protection that has successfully (and foolishly, IMHO) argued that we have to be prepared to fight two major wars simultaneously, that we h ave to "take care" of our allies in Europe. If the US pulls back and says "screw the world," and the EU finds itself having to pay for its own protection against Russian imperialism, they may find that universal medical care and terrific levels of infrastructure financing don't come so easily.
Hilarious - the notion that the US acts out of altruism and beggars itself to the point where it cannot look after its own sick because of the cost of defending those sluggards in the "EU" (not sure why you've singled out EU members amongst European countries). The US nuclear umbrella extends to Europe so that WW3 will happen on the plains of Germany, and not in the US backyard. The cost of a healthcare system could easily be borne if it was accompanied by a re-organisation in which the corporate noses were removed from the trough (can you say "opioid misuse epidemic"?), but that's not gonna happen because, you know, "friddum".
-
I don't at all agree with massive taxation of the wealthy.
Punitive taxation. Punitive. Consider what that is saying. It is saying that enterprise must be punished. There's no way around that basic fact. The assumption is that success is evil.
We "enjoyed" that in the UK for many years, and its net result was to impoverish many estates, either destroy them physically via abandonment, or force the owners to try to put them onto the shoulders of the nation via handing the properties and associated maintenace costs over to heritage organizations which, in turn, try to make the things viable by selling entrance tickets to rubberneckers. (Hell, even the Rolling Stones went to France to avoid that mad taxation crap.)
At a blow, people lost their jobs, some their family history and a wonderful way of life built by those who had the brains to make great enterprises flourish. The socialist way is to say that it was all an edifice built on the back of others. Really? Ever consider that, without those rich, the poor wouldn't even have had what they had working for the wealthy families? A vacuum promises even less than does a rich person.
I was surprised to hear on the news the other day that Russia has half the GDP that does Britain. Makes me think that position in the arms race is more a matter of where the money goes than of how much money there is in the bank.
As to whether a nuclear war happens in Europe or the States or in Asia, the result will be the same: massive radiation poisoning and the end of days for us all. Unless caused by a suicidal madman/mad woman, I don't see nukes will fly unless by accident, which may be very difficult to achieve. Of course, throw a religious nut into the mix, and all bets are off.
Regarding the poisoning of the two Russians in Britain: surely, if the nerve agent is so deadly in such tiny doses, it could easily be sent to anyone by mail via an impregnated letter. True junk mail. A mere touch would be enough. No chance of tracing face-to-face killers; instead, killers who may never have met the victims at any stage of the process will just go out of the office for a cup of tea and a plain, dried old scone, their job well done.
-
I don't at all agree with massive taxation of the wealthy.
You're skewing the discussion by using the word "massive". Who said massive?
In the period following WW2, there was a lot of economic growth but you never heard about the 1% owning so much. But now they do, so it seems to me to be difficult to make the case that regulation and taxation are harming them. If they were being harmed, things would be trending the other way for them, wouldn't it?
Since about 1980, income of the middle class in the US (and elsewhere) has stagnated, while more and more wealth has migrated to the very wealthy, something that is very well documented by now. How much more do they need before they permit some of that wealth to trickle down? How low should tax on the rich be? Lower than that of the middle class? 5%? Zero?
This is a similar question to that of the funding of the US military. It is already much larger than that of many other countries combined. Should they get more, as I believe was proposed in latest Trump budget (I think I read that, not 100% certain anymore, too much news)? What is it that they can't do now that requires more funding?
-
You're skewing the discussion by using the word "massive". Who said massive?..
I believe Rob was referring to the 99% tax rate, which would surely fit the word “massive.”
-
I don't see nukes will fly unless by accident
US has no issues to commit war crimes by intentionally nuking civilian targets - did it already twice, will do it again of course...
-
US has no issues to commit war crimes by intentionally nuking civilian targets - did it already twice, will do it again of course...
According to your profile you have no name, you're nowhere, and your age is N/A. If you really believe that the activities by the US that ended WW II were a war crime I can understand why you'd want to remain anonymous. You might want to see if you can learn a bit of history.
-
You might want to see if you can learn a bit of history.
;D in its american interpretation, no less ? USA actions are no different from Assad's actions aimed to end the activities of sunni terrorists instigated & sponsored by USA and its allies among the sunni dictatorship regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other emirates of various flavors... kill civilians to save the lives of your own soldiers...
-
Wow! You must be a really young kid. "American interpretation?" How about British interpretation? How about Canadian interpretation? How about French interpretation? I could go on, but I realize I'm talking past you. Are you in grade school?
-
How about British interpretation? How about Canadian interpretation? How about French interpretation?
you mean to list every US ally here or limit yourself to just NATO, seriously ;D ? ...
-
I believe Rob was referring to the 99% tax rate, which would surely fit the word “massive.”
Indeed, and that's what created the concept of tax exiles. AFAIK, some of the Nordic lands were as fond of that idea as was Labour Britain in the period. Wasn't it Bergman, the director, who claimed you could end up paying more tax than you were earning?
The absent king of Scotland, 007 mk1, went to live in Spain and Lyford Cay in New Providence, Bahamas. Guess why. The great egalitarian seeking a little more equality, no doubt.
-
Wow! You must be a really young kid. "American interpretation?" How about British interpretation? How about Canadian interpretation? How about French interpretation? I could go on, but I realize I'm talking past you. Are you in grade school?
Russ, not worth the metaphorical ink it takes to reply to some of these posts. Don't waste your energies.
Rob
-
;D in its american interpretation, no less ? USA actions are no different from Assad's actions aimed to end the activities of sunni terrorists instigated & sponsored by USA and its allies among the sunni dictatorship regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other emirates of various flavors... kill civilians to save the lives of your own soldiers...
This silly provocation, hidden in anonymity and irrelevant to the topic, must stop. DP, consider this your final warning.
Jeremy
-
This silly provocation, hidden in anonymity and irrelevant to the topic, must stop. DP, consider this your final warning.
Jeremy
Provocation? The point, surely, is simply to illustrate that what constitutes "history" depends on where you stand? Seems a lot less of a provocation than RSL's ad hominem?
-
Provocation? The point, surely, is simply to illustrate that what constitutes "history" depends on where you stand? Seems a lot less of a provocation than RSL's ad hominem?
One man's ad hom. is sometimes another's mild exasperation.
Rob
-
I don't at all agree with massive taxation of the wealthy.
I didn't say "massive taxation of the wealthy." I suggest 99% taxation at time of death, with a remnant of the wealth ($25 million free and clear) passed on to heirs. I suggested that there earners of the wealth would be able spend as much as they wish on whatever they wish -- giant yachts, airliners, etc., but wouldn't be able to pass it all on. It's the pernicious accumulation of great wealth over generations that is harmful; the generation that actually earns it is usually pretty useful.
-
John,
I believe we mostly agree. I’ll respond more in details when I find a keyboard.
Except for one thing perhaps. I believe that the military spendings in the US are mostly motivated by the influence of the weapon lobby and are way exagerated compare to actual needs, even with real threats.
Besides these spendings have benefited hugely many civilian businesses and end up being state funding of private enterprise just like Europe subsidises some companies.
As far as Russia goes, it is a complex topic. I believe that antagonizing them will end up being a self-realizinh prophecy and once again, who would that benefit besides arm dealers?
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually, we agree on almost all of that, as well. The genesis of the problem was the fear of WWIII and Communist imperialism, which seemed to be going on everywhere in the late 40s and 50s -- China, Indochina, Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc. There was also the overriding fear of a nuclear exchange...I come from the "duck-and-cover" generation, and believe me, the fear was real. Then, because of the manipulations of the military-industrial complex -- there is hardly a congressional district anywhere in the US that doesn't have an employer manufacturing goods for the military, which guarantees congressional support for the military -- we can hardly escape military spending, as stupid as it is at times. If we do manage to curtail unnecessary military spending, which Obama managed to do to a small degree, then western Europe might find itself compelled to increase spending substantially...and in fact, that process has already begun. Much of this fear, IMHO, is created by the political elite which manipulates it to maintain their positions. Russia itself is now (again, IMHO) held together mostly by fantasies. Does anybody really want to invade Russia? Does anybody really want to cripple Russia or do more damage than the Russians already do to themselves? Does anybody really want to invade the US or China? There are all these fantasies out there, and they seem to infect the elites as much as the rest of us dumbasses.
On a somewhat non-related topic, a number of Donald Trump's aides have been dumped because they couldn't get security clearances. IMHO, security clearances are a waste of time. We need security for two things: the timing of military actions and the identity of spies. Nothing else is really worth protecting, but we have these huge security organizations which are more of a threat to freedom than any foreign nation could ever be. I actually think we'd all be *better* off if everybody knew everything about everybody.
-
... but wouldn't be able to pass it all on...
Knowing that what you earned will end up in governornment hands diminishes the motivation to earn it in the first place. Note that I am not against a reasonable inheritance tax, but 99%!?
-
Knowing that what you earned will end up in governornment hands diminishes the motivation to earn it in the first place. Note that I am not against a reasonable inheritance tax, but 99%!?
Why any? Taxes were already paid in the first instance. Why again? If there's a capital gain on an asset, sure, tax the estate on the gain, but not on principal values.
-
Why any? Taxes were already paid in the first instance. Why again? If there's a capital gain on an asset, sure, tax the estate on the gain, but not on principal values.
Doesn't have anything to do with taxation, in a certain philosophical sense. It has to do with breaking up concentrations of inherited wealth. I say 99% of everything over $25 million (or pick a more suitable number) but would allow the owners of that wealth to create limited kinds of charitable foundations (with sunset limitations on the charities) so the money wouldn't necessarily go to the government. We still have politically active Rockefellers, Kennedys, Kochs and so on generations after the their family founders made the money, and their prominence is based on nothing but the inheritance, rather than any political/social/intellectual merit. Why should do-nothing heirs have the power to distort the whole political fabric of a country? I read recently about a very rich heiress who did nothing for most of her life, but did spend $1 million on her daughter's coming out party...in the 1960s. I was making (if I recall correctly) $90 a month as a draftee...and I was married.
-
Doesn't have anything to do with taxation, in a certain philosophical sense. It has to do with breaking up concentrations of inherited wealth. I say 99% of everything over $25 million (or pick a more suitable number) but would allow the owners of that wealth to create limited kinds of charitable foundations (with sunset limitations on the charities) so the money wouldn't necessarily go to the government. We still have politically active Rockefellers, Kennedys, Kochs and so on generations after the their family founders made the money, and their prominence is based on nothing but the inheritance, rather than any political/social/intellectual merit. Why should do-nothing heirs have the power to distort the whole political fabric of a country? I read recently about a very rich heiress who did nothing for most of her life, but did spend $1 million on her daughter's coming out party...in the 1960s. I was making (if I recall correctly) $90 a month as a draftee...and I was married.
What's the philosophy involved? "Don't excel"? Fix the basic taxation system and laws (and I'm Australian and this applies here, the US, pretty much everywhere) to remove special interest groups and then continue to tax profits and income and having done that, once, the balance is free for the owner to do with as they please (including leaving it to family). You put a cap of $25m (or whatever figure you like), but what if someone has 1 child and someone else has 10? Is it per person? What if they want to donate it to other people, entities, etc.? All you're really doing is introducing a zillion special cases for people to claim exemptions and you have the same problem as you do now.
-
What's the philosophy involved? "Don't excel"? Fix the basic taxation system and laws (and I'm Australian and this applies here, the US, pretty much everywhere) to remove special interest groups and then continue to tax profits and income and having done that, once, the balance is free for the owner to do with as they please (including leaving it to family). You put a cap of $25m (or whatever figure you like), but what if someone has 1 child and someone else has 10? Is it per person? What if they want to donate it to other people, entities, etc.? All you're really doing is introducing a zillion special cases for people to claim exemptions and you have the same problem as you do now.
The philosophy is, that all our resources should be used for the betterment of mankind as a whole.
All the poverty and malnutrition in the world is due to an inefficient and wasteful use of resources.
A billionaire who builds a mansion in the countryside, which is empty for most of the year, and/or who owns six of the most expensive cars that money can buy, just for the pleasure of occasionally riding in one, driven by a chauffeur who's on standby most of the time, and/or who owns a private plane which is used very infrequently, is simply wasting resources which could be spent far more sensibly for the benefit of others.
On the other hand, an individual from an average background, who's given a good education and has a dream to become a successful entrepreneur, and who succeeds in creating billion dollar industries which give employment and prosperity to thousands of workers, is in a different category, and is to be applauded.
-
The philosophy is, that all our resources should be used for the betterment of mankind as a whole.
All the poverty and malnutrition in the world is due to an inefficient and wasteful use of resources.
A billionaire who builds a mansion in the countryside, which is empty for most of the year, and/or who owns six of the most expensive cars that money can buy, just for the pleasure of occasionally riding in one, driven by a chauffeur who's on standby most of the time, and/or who owns a private plane which is used very infrequently, is simply wasting resources which could be spent far more sensibly for the benefit of others.
On the other hand, an individual from an average background, who's given a good education and has a dream to become a successful entrepreneur, and who succeeds in creating billion dollar industries which give employment and prosperity to thousands of workers, is in a different category, and is to be applauded.
That's quite absurd.
Those expensive cars are bought from a company that gives employment and prosperity to however many workers and exists only because some people are able to afford their products. That plane, and the maintenance, and the pilot(s) and crew and so on, the same.
The vast, vast, vast, majority of inheritence is not from billionaires to their children. Even $25m mentioned above is not a huge amount, for example, if you had, say, 5 beneficiaries (and under the proposal anything over that is gone). Here in Sydney you could buy a nice house and a car, furnish it, and you'd be lucky to have change from $2m and that's just a suburban family home and a mid-ranged car. Add $500k if you wanted to move those up in the start of the luxury level. The remaining balance, invested in a low risk way, wouldn't generate an excessive amount once you factor in tax and CPI.
But it still misses the point. The money being passed on has already been taxed. Why should it be taxed again due to death? All the income derived from the wealth will continue to be taxed, money will be spent to replaced or maintain things and going back into the economy or invested in other ways (even a simple bank account leads to credit creation, and other capital investments contribute as well).
So what if someone is lucky? Because that's really what you want to tax - someone's luck that they inheret a large sum. You don't want them to be lucky - you want them to "work" for it, without having any idea what they may or may not have contributed or what they may or may not contribute going forward.
As I said, stop all the special interest groups, simplify the tax system, and go from there, but just tax things once.
-
The money being passed on has already been taxed. Why should it be taxed again due to death?
Why not? The tax system is an instrument of public policy, not a law of thermodynamics.
-
I didn't say "massive taxation of the wealthy." I suggest 99% taxation at time of death, with a remnant of the wealth ($25 million free and clear) passed on to heirs. I suggested that there earners of the wealth would be able spend as much as they wish on whatever they wish -- giant yachts, airliners, etc., but wouldn't be able to pass it all on. It's the pernicious accumulation of great wealth over generations that is harmful; the generation that actually earns it is usually pretty useful.
I can't agree with you at all, John.
You are really deciding what an acceptable (to you) level of wealth might be from your personal perspective, and that is a flawed concept. Different people have different expectations, experiences, starting points and different obligations in life; as has been pointed out, even the number of children (let's not yet consider how the family tree spreads, branches out as it goes to grandchildren and beyond) will greatly affect the distribution and the value to each beneficiary.
I am personally very, very far from being rich, but life has made me close to some millionaires and yes, I have cruised the Med with them and all that kind of stuff. But don't imagine their life is all one of luxury and the dolce far niente. They work all the time to keep the act together, those many balls all up in the air; to keep on top of the ever-changing values and fortunes of their investments and businesses. Beyond those problems they have to contend with family and the many pretty sharks surrounding them and their sons, not to mention the hungry males doing the same to their daughters. Money does not come alone; it always has its own penalty and cost to everyone who gets it in any meanigful way. Even lottery winners find the same problems, and without the acquired skills to know how to cope.
There is no way that I can visualise it to be right to remove from anyone or their family the wealth they have earned honestly. I do not think that the concept of spreading it around by decree is the right way to go about it; that's just extortion by state. Enough that tax is paid as the money is earned. Why should the state then rob the corpses of those who were able to make money? It's disgusting tomb raiding and robbery, pure and simple.
If you want disincentive to the creation of enterprises, then taxation even beyond death is one sure way to go about crushing the human spirit of adventure. Better just to create the little corner shop and leave it at that.
Holding together companies is no easy business, and weakening them by removing capital does little to further the interests of those firms and simply puts both company and employees in danger. Vast wealth is not usually left sitting in banks, and where it is, even that money is put out to work by the banks; wealth is used to make more wealth, and that necessitates its circulation into and through other businesses and ventures and experiments, all of which include the employment of other people both highly skilled as well as at the lowest levels of ability.
Don't kill the golden goose, and do keep all spanners far from the works!
-
I can't agree with you at all, John.
You are really deciding what an acceptable (to you) level of wealth might be from your personal perspective, and that is a flawed concept. Different people have different expectations, experiences, starting points and different obligations in life;
Looking forward to hearing how the tax man reacts when Rob tells him he has no tax to pay due to his "expectations" and "obligations in life". I suspect that the conversation won't go very well.
-
Looking forward to hearing how the tax man reacts when Rob tells him he has no tax to pay due to his "expectations" and "obligations in life". I suspect that the conversation won't go very well.
Cute; sadly, the problem of "superfluous" millions is not mine. I had pointed that out, so you are free to consider my perspective as truly altruistic.
Rob
-
That's quite absurd.
Those expensive cars are bought from a company that gives employment and prosperity to however many workers and exists only because some people are able to afford their products. That plane, and the maintenance, and the pilot(s) and crew and so on, the same.
Absurd? You appear not to understand the concept of 'efficient use of resources', Phil.
Whatever we buy, whether expensive cars or cheap products from China, provides employment and at least some degree of prosperity for those employed during the manufacture of such products.
The efficiency aspect not only relates to the methods of manufacture but also to the use of such products after they've been manufactured.
Which scenario do you think is more productive and of greater benefit to others?
To spend a million dollars on 4 or 5 luxury cars which sit in a garage most of the time and require regular maintenance despite the fact they are hardly ever used, or to spend a million dollars on 2 or 3 buses for public transport, and/or to transport underprivileged children to and from school?
-
This is veering away from the thread topic, but here goes anyway. This recent discussion about rates of taxation and merit-based income/wealth is interesting. One small aspect of this was examined in a recent Planet Money podcast: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money (https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money). You will need to scroll down to the March 9 edition titled Rigging the Economy. I found one discussion point in the podcast very intriguing. Some others have vilified "regulations" as stifling marketplace innovation, and in a sense that may be true, but not in the way it's usually presented, that is, as something that lefty regulators are imposing on an unfettered marketplace. It's not always that simple. Best to examine all the aspects before pronouncing.
When it comes to merit-based compensation, about all I can tell from personal experience is that sometimes it's valid and sometimes it isn't. A real estate agent in the Toronto area in the last 4-5 years might have earned a very healthy income. The industry has an almost-monopoly and commissions are more or less fixed at 5% of sale price. It's not clear why an agent should earn 5% on the sale of a $2 million home, the same percentage he would have earned on the sale of a $400,000 home. Was one more work than the other? Hard to say, and there seem to be emerging disruptions to that industry. Time will tell what happens. I can easily see how real estate agent A can earn more than agent B by working harder or smarter. I completely understand how merit plays a role there. What is less easy to understand is why agent A should earn lots more than a welder (or anything else). A large part of the agent's personal success is determined by luck, it seems to me. He happens to be lucky enough to be working in a business that's booming in that market at this time. But is he really more important than a welder (or plumber or auto technician or a really hard to find talented carpenter)? "Supply and demand" sometimes reflects reality and sometimes it doesn't, I'd say.
Does the 1% deserve all the wealth it has accumulated in the last 30-40 years? Is it truly fair that middle-class income has stagnated? Did the middle class do something to deserve that wage freeze?
-
The philosophy is, that all our resources should be used for the betterment of mankind as a whole.
1. All the poverty and malnutrition in the world is due to an inefficient and wasteful use of resources.
2. A billionaire who builds a mansion in the countryside, which is empty for most of the year, and/or who owns six of the most expensive cars that money can buy, just for the pleasure of occasionally riding in one, driven by a chauffeur who's on standby most of the time, and/or who owns a private plane which is used very infrequently, is simply wasting resources which could be spent far more sensibly for the benefit of others.
3. On the other hand, an individual from an average background, who's given a good education and has a dream to become a successful entrepreneur, and who succeeds in creating billion dollar industries which give employment and prosperity to thousands of workers, is in a different category, and is to be applauded.
1. Really? How about geography, weather, over-population and lack of birth control for either religious, educational or economic reasons, or because the man just likes doing it whenever and however he can, and without anything coming between him and his pleasures? Even free condoms have a hard time getting used (no pun etc.).
2. No, he is providing employment for the people who make the stuff as well as for those who service it. Those cars are built with their specific use in mind; they also provide incentive to other people perhaps as much as they do, apparently, create envy and class hatred. What is "for the benefit of others"? That the feckless should be enabled to spend as much time on the couch as those too old or infirm to get off one? That the health services be compelled to issue drugs to those who don't need them, but kick up hell if they don't get out of a doctor's room without the slip of paper for the chemist? That the obese, the smokers and junkies should be entitled to health care even though they are wantonly killing themselves?
3. Yet, the same, self-made rich guy must worry and plan against crazy death duties that will be levied against his family? Sure he may, on some subjective moral level, be in a different category, but his estate will be posthumously crippled just the same as that of any other rich guy, accountants notwithstanding.
-
This is veering away from the thread topic, but here goes anyway. This recent discussion about rates of taxation and merit-based income/wealth is interesting. One small aspect of this was examined in a recent Planet Money podcast: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money (https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money). You will need to scroll down to the March 9 edition titled Rigging the Economy. I found one discussion point in the podcast very intriguing. Some others have vilified "regulations" as stifling marketplace innovation, and in a sense that may be true, but not in the way it's usually presented, that is, as something that lefty regulators are imposing on an unfettered marketplace. It's not always that simple. Best to examine all the aspects before pronouncing.
When it comes to merit-based compensation, about all I can tell from personal experience is that sometimes it's valid and sometimes it isn't. A real estate agent in the Toronto area in the last 4-5 years might have earned a very healthy income. The industry has an almost-monopoly and commissions are more or less fixed at 5% of sale price. It's not clear why an agent should earn 5% on the sale of a $2 million home, the same percentage he would have earned on the sale of a $400,000 home. Was one more work than the other? Hard to say, and there seem to be emerging disruptions to that industry. Time will tell what happens. I can easily see how real estate agent A can earn more than agent B by working harder or smarter. I completely understand how merit plays a role there. What is less easy to understand is why agent A should earn lots more than a welder (or anything else). A large part of the agent's personal success is determined by luck, it seems to me. He happens to be lucky enough to be working in a business that's booming in that market at this time. But is he really more important than a welder (or plumber or auto technician or a really hard to find talented carpenter)? "Supply and demand" sometimes reflects reality and sometimes it doesn't, I'd say.
Does the 1% deserve all the wealth it has accumulated in the last 30-40 years? Is it truly fair that middle-class income has stagnated? Did the middle class do something to deserve that wage freeze?
Robert, I'm trying to drag myself out for my obligatory hour's walk, but today, Lula is making it increasingly difficult!
Estate agents: in the UK the normal rate is around 1%, with, I believe one or two in London on 3%. The agencies here that have my pad on their books are looking at 6%, should a buyer materialise. In the 80s, it was around 15% on new builds. I know this, because one such developer and my bro' in law were discussing a tie-up between Mallorca and Scotland; I was going to be involved at this end. Regarding the current 6% the agent charges: to this, you have to add IVA, a tax at 20% or so on top of the agent's fee, and then face your own lawyer's fee too. In other words, that house selling for 325 g. will net the seller only just about 300 g. Think what that means when the buyer has to pay for all that, plus a tax on the purchase price, and his own lawyer, too. No wonder only the very expensive stuff moves.
Indeed, why any agent selling a house should get such a rake-off is inexplicable. They mostly do nothing but float a website; the display windows of the better ones show little other than multi-million euro villas, with the apartments usually an afterthought. I did point out that anyone looking for an apartment in the 300 - 400 grand region will think twice about entering an agency where, before he opens the door, all he sees are villas beyond his budget. But they don't care: it's about agency prestige. Many have closed shop since the late 2004 era, but the remaining ones don't learn the lesson - perhaps because many don't really need the business, operating much as do some art gallery owners.
I'm afraid one has to come to the final conclusion that reward, value and expectations are all over the place, and that not much makes sense out there. So much is perception, so much is true value (whatever that is).
Rob
-
2. No, he is providing employment for the people who make the stuff as well as for those who service it.
Just to dot the 'i's, I think we should probably avoid stating it only this way. As if jobs were something that rich people permit us to have. It is their employees, in part, who generate the wealth that they enjoy. This should not be forgotten, and it is easily forgotten when we phrase things this way. Of course, the folks at the top supplies something important to the enterprise for which they deserve rewards, no one contests this. (Well, some might contest this, I guess.)
-
Robert, I'm trying to drag myself out for my obligatory hour's walk, but today, Lula is making it increasingly difficult!
My advice: Go for that walk.
-
As if jobs were something that rich people permit us to have.
Usually rich people become rich because they CREATE the jobs people are "permitted" to have. I'll confess that's not true for rich people who inherited their wealth, but often it's those inheritors who are bright enough to preserve the jobs people are "permitted" to have.
-
Why any? Taxes were already paid in the first instance. Why again?...
A liberal against more taxes!?
Who are you and what have you done to our good, reliably liberal friend Farmer!? :D
-
... But it still misses the point. The money being passed on has already been taxed. Why should it be taxed again due to death?...
Simple.
We tax people, not "money." We tax people's income, to be precise. Inheritance is just a new income for a new taxpayer (or an additional income for an existing taxpayer).
Besides, many mega billionaires (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc.) already declared that they are leaving only a modest (by the overall size of their wealth) inheritance to their children, giving the rest to charity. All the 99% inheritance tax proponents are suggesting is that the government should decide instead how to spend that money on charities (or wars). Most of us would agree that governments are notoriously lousy when it comes to spending (other people's) money.
-
Does the 1% deserve all the wealth it has accumulated in the last 30-40 years? Is it truly fair that middle-class income has stagnated? Did the middle class do something to deserve that wage freeze?
I overlooked this part of the earlier post to which I responded, prior to going for that much-needed walk.
What does the wealth of that theoretical 1% represent? To me, it is far from a simple measure of what their bank accounts hold. As I said before, the money in the bank is still working, albeit via the bank doing the investing as it sees fit. However, as a wealthy man told me: "Rob, money in the bank is a stinking fish,". Clearly, his meaning was to have it out there, working directly for you, financing more business adventures. And I think that's something easily missed: business often is seen as an adventure, not just a way of earning a basic crust. Trouble is, as with the stock market or gambling, you have to be careful that you can afford to lose what you employ or otherwise risk. That is one very good reason for keeping it in the bank. Or it was, until the last few years.
Those zillionaires, do they all own 100% of the companies where their money lives? Can they instantly remove it without loss? I doubt that's always the case; I think it more likely that it consists of ownership investments that can be there for the long term, and not just fun money for the blowing on women and yachts and Lears.
So, that 1% does enjoy a higher possible standard of living than most of us so busily cracking our balls in this discussion, but so what? It made the money; we did not.
Regarding the middle-classes: who or what are they? Am I middle-class because I ran a business in what some perceived a gamorous industry? Is a guy who runs a large plumbing company working-class because the money comes from fixing toilets and unblocking sewers and drains? Is an airline pilot middle-class because he makes a lot of money? If so, where do you place a celebrity hairdresser making even more?
If there really is a middle-class, and if it is being frozen in its tracks, perhaps all that that may represent is this: when inflation slows, when people no longer feel confident enough to demand higher salaries, all that has happened is that they have found themselves in a rare moment of natural equilibrium, where true worth to society has been reached.
It's hardly a matter of any class deserving any particular position, more is it a matter of how things stand and are.
Taking Slobodan's point: as for how some billionaires chose to leave their wealth, that's up to them. That they may love or hate their children and bequeath as they do is a personal relationship that only they can or need understand. Charity donations usually bring tax advantages, do they not? Also, when money means very little because you don't need to count it anymore, what's wrong with giving it to those you'd like to help? Even the cynic must admit there's a feelgood factor involved, over and beyond the tax advantage, when you fund a new wing to a cancer hospital.
-
Besides, many mega billionaires (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc.) already declared that they are leaving only a modest (by the overall size of their wealth) inheritance to their children...
I believe Warren Buffett has on several occasions stated that he doesn't pay enough taxes.
-
And the EU may have an answer to this, for the EU, as long as they are allowed to continue pretending that a totalitarian, aggressive, imperialist Russia doesn't exist. They've been allowed to pretend this because they lived under the US military umbrella. That umbrella has cost the US dearly -- it's one reason that we don't have cradle-to-grave medical care, like the EU, why our infrastructure is so poor, unlike the EU,
I don't think the numbers bear out that the US has sacrificed healthcare for military spending. The US spends far more per capita on healthcare than any other country, more than twice what the UK spends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
The US spends a greater proportion of its gdp on healthcare than any other country except the Marshall Islands (which is at the same level). It spends nearly twice as much as the UK. It spends way more than the EU average. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
The reason the US does not have cradle to grave healthcare is because of the political choices it has made. These have resulted in a very expensive system. On the other hand, there are many disadvantages in the UK system, and there are good reasons why no other country has adopted that model as its means of providing healthcare to those who cannot afford it.
I am, personally, grateful for the US military umbrella, but I do not believe it is altruistic. It greatly enhances the power and prestige of the US, much to US advantage. The US tried to stay out of the last two world wars and could not do so, and it has been wise to try to prevent another from occurring. But I also agree that the EU countries should spend more on defence.
-
What's the philosophy involved? "Don't excel"? Fix the basic taxation system and laws (and I'm Australian and this applies here, the US, pretty much everywhere) to remove special interest groups and then continue to tax profits and income and having done that, once, the balance is free for the owner to do with as they please (including leaving it to family). You put a cap of $25m (or whatever figure you like), but what if someone has 1 child and someone else has 10? Is it per person? What if they want to donate it to other people, entities, etc.? All you're really doing is introducing a zillion special cases for people to claim exemptions and you have the same problem as you do now.
The philosophy is that we need to create a stable democratic government which, whatever small currents and eddies may disturb it from time to time, basically stays that way. You may disagree that that's not what *you* want, but I think many people do. And I argue that massive multi-generational concentration of wealth in a tiny percentage of the population ALWAYS leads to non-democratic outcome, as those people use a portion of their money to perpetuate their status. The cure is the removal of the excessive amounts of that money. I don't really think that the amount that you allow to remain as inheritance matters too much, except for the "optics" of the situation, but my suggestion of $25 million is purely arbitrary, and there may be better ideas about that. But the fundamental idea is the breakup of the huge excessive inheritances. And even a 99% levy wouldn't always do that -- the last time I saw it, I believe I read that Bill Gates was worth $80 billion. If he were only allowed to leave 1% to his children, they'd get $800 million. Is $800 unearned million enough? Understand, I'm not talking about breaking up the wealth of "small millionaires" -- history suggests that their heirs will lose it quickly enough. It's those with many, many billions whose estates I'd assess. My basic view is that the ability to accumulate wealth is a great driver of innovation and job-creation and so on, and should be protected...for those who actually do the innovation and job creation, but not for those who essentially sit on a huge inherited nest egg and only bestir themselves to engage with the world when they see a threat to their unearned money.
I will also say that I'm seriously offended when I see that the US economic system is so rigged that some people may accumulate huge, low-tax fortunes of many, many billions of dollars -- taxed at 22% -- while major cities swarm with beggars. We clean up the idea by calling them "street people" which sort of subliminally attaches a measure of romance to their status, but they're beggars, no less than if they lived in 19th Century India.
-
Simple.
We tax people, not "money." We tax people's income, to be precise. Inheritance is just a new income for a new taxpayer (or an additional income for an existing taxpayer).
Besides, many mega billionaires (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc.) already declared that they are leaving only a modest (by the overall size of their wealth) inheritance to their children, giving the rest to charity. All the 99% inheritance tax proponents are suggesting is that the government should decide instead how to spend that money on charities (or wars). Most of us would agree that governments are notoriously lousy when it comes to spending (other people's) money.
But inheritance, of whatever, is a gift.
-
But inheritance, of whatever, is a gift.
And gifts are taxed just the same.
-
Let's put things in perspective. Let's start with the assumption that John Camp seems to share (bold mine):
“One might be forgiven for thinking that around the world, the richest of the rich were all born into their money," Amoros wrote. “After all, a self-made person would have to accumulate wealth so quickly that within one generation they surpass a family that’s been accumulating it for several. “
Count Thomas Picketty among those that might make such an assumption. The French economist, in his best-selling book on the topic, wrote that “it is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labor.”
However,
Not yet, apparently. At least at the very top. Forbes claims that some 70% of America’s richest created their wealth. What’s more, the magazine pointed out that wealth is actually becoming more meritocratic in the U.S., seeing as less than half of the Forbes 400 in 1984 were self-made.
Of note, the self-made riches tend to have more, with an average wealth that’s 58% greater than those who inherited their money. Three of the richest men in the world — Bill Gates, Spain’s Amancio Ortega and Mexico’s Carlos Slim — all fall on the “self-made” side and are far wealthier than the biggest beneficiary of family riches — L’Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt of France.
Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/inherited-vs-self-made-a-map-of-how-the-worlds-richest-built-their-fortunes-2015-10-26
-
Cute; sadly, the problem of "superfluous" millions is not mine. I had pointed that out, so you are free to consider my perspective as truly altruistic.
Rob
Don't be so hard on yourself Rob, I'm sure you're just as good a man as all those rich folk that you want to stay in charge of the world.
-
... those rich folk... in charge of the world.
If that would be true, then Barack Obama would have never won the election (or any other Democrat). Koch brothers contribution to political causes are not only matched, but surpassed by unions' contributions. Among the Republican candidates last election, Bush Jr. outspent DT 10:1... and lost miserably.
-
Let's put things in perspective. Let's start with the assumption that John Camp seems to share (bold mine):
Specific cases may not reflect trends properly. There are indices that show that some economies are more successful at creating social mobility than others, for example, and that there is something in general more positive about living in one of those. I listened to a podcast recently about that (sorry, cannot remember where but I will try to track it down) that showed that although social mobility on average is worse in the US than in many other western economies, that there is great geographic distribution in this ability. There are some places in the country that are almost guaranteed to thwart "picking yourself up by your own bootstraps" for the people living there. That is, someone born in those places is screwed, if you'll forgive the loose language. You can't get it right in every single case, but tweaks in social policy can help alleviate this.
A question arises about whether one should try to do something about this. However, if a country doesn't try to improve the chances of its citizens to improve their lives, then why bother living in a society.
I thought this TED talk presented an interesting view of the situation: https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming (https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming).
-
...beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming...
Nah... someone already noticed something peculiar about Americans: "Most Americans see themselves only as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-
A liberal against more taxes!?
Who are you and what have you done to our good, reliably liberal friend Farmer!? :D
All jokes aside, I've said many times, that I'm not liberal :-)
-
1. Really? How about geography, weather, over-population and lack of birth control for either religious, educational or economic reasons, or because the man just likes doing it whenever and however he can, and without anything coming between him and his pleasures? Even free condoms have a hard time getting used (no pun etc.).
Yes. Really. Whatever the geography and weather, poverty and malnutrition in this modern technological era, are all due to an inefficient use of resources.
Of course, tens of thousands of years ago before nations and so-called civilizations existed, people were free to move to wherever the pastures were greener, which is probably why some of the first humans moved out of Africa as the climate became drier. One imagines that those who were not able to move quickly enough to greener pastures would occasionally be the victims of extreme famine and die of starvation and/or diseases.
The reasons for this current 'inefficient and wasteful use of resources' are another issue. They would include plain stupidity, corruption, incompetence, greed, ego, vanity, and the power struggles of individuals who initiate wars and conflicts in order to protect or expand their own authority and rule over others.
2. No, he is providing employment for the people who make the stuff as well as for those who service it.
Yes he is. He's providing useless employment that serves no useful purpose, and that highlights the problem. I'm reminded of stories of the ancient Roman armies. To keep the soldiers occupied during times of no conflict, they would sometimes be instructed to pick up pebbles from the beach, then later place them back again, in the same location.
The technology and resources we have access to, in this modern era, are more than sufficient to provide a comfortable and secure living for every man, woman and child on the planet. Sadly, so many wealthy people prefer to waste resources. About 14 billion dollars worth of food is wasted every year, world-wide, and that's just one example.
Can you really not see the economic difference, Rob, between someone like Imelda Marcos buying 1,000 pairs of expensive designer shoes, to satisfy her vanity, and someone who spends the same amount of money on 2 or 3 thousand pairs of practical shoes for bare-footed peasants who can't afford any shoes at all?
-
... due to an inefficient use of resources...
If only we would have some sort of a central planning body that would make sure resources are used efficiently, coming up with five-year plans how to achieve it, and, when achieved, move on to the next five-year plan. I think I even heard the name for those plans: пятилетка*. The rumor had it that we were only a few пятилеткаs away from true communism.
*пят=five лет=year.
-
пятилетка done in Soviet style in the entire eastern block never worked.
The current preoccupation with just the next quarter can be even more disastrous.
However, long term planning in the Warren Buffet universe seems to work very well, so maybe it's not the planning but the execution.
-
Yes. Really. Whatever the geography and weather, poverty and malnutrition in this modern technological era, are all due to an inefficient use of resources.
Of course, tens of thousands of years ago before nations and so-called civilizations existed, people were free to move to wherever the pastures were greener, which is probably why some of the first humans moved out of Africa as the climate became drier. One imagines that those who were not able to move quickly enough to greener pastures would occasionally be the victims of extreme famine and die of starvation and/or diseases.
The reasons for this current 'inefficient and wasteful use of resources' are another issue. They would include plain stupidity, corruption, incompetence, greed, ego, vanity, and the power struggles of individuals who initiate wars and conflicts in order to protect or expand their own authority and rule over others.
Yes he is. He's providing useless employment that serves no useful purpose, and that highlights the problem. I'm reminded of stories of the ancient Roman armies. To keep the soldiers occupied during times of no conflict, they would sometimes be instructed to pick up pebbles from the beach, then later place them back again, in the same location.
The technology and resources we have access to, in this modern era, are more than sufficient to provide a comfortable and secure living for every man, woman and child on the planet. Sadly, so many wealthy people prefer to waste resources. About 14 billion dollars worth of food is wasted every year, world-wide, and that's just one example.
Can you really not see the economic difference, Rob, between someone like Imelda Marcos buying 1,000 pairs of expensive designer shoes, to satisfy her vanity, and someone who spends the same amount of money on 2 or 3 thousand pairs of practical shoes for bare-footed peasants who can't afford any shoes at all?
Ray, you have no right to suggest that one man's fun car is another person's lack of shoes. During my eight years as a kid in India, none of the chauffeurs wore them when driving.
If you have looked closely at the feet of those who walk barefoot you will have noticed that their soles are as thick and strong as the soles of your tennis shoes. I can't vouch for Mrs Marcos, of course, but she lived several thousand miles away. ;-)
Anyway, the waste of food every day in the West is not the realm only of the rich; more, I would suggest it's the result of all those working wives who never did have the opportunity to learn to cook properly, and who ended up working outwith the home because the cost of living grew, automatically, to suit the spending capacity of the two-earner household, leaving them no choice at all but to go out there, find alternative jobs and work.
Where once the husband could earn enough to preserve his pride, feed his family, the double-earner phenomenon skewered the natural way of things and everybody, includng the singles, ended up having to earn more to stand still. You can't do that and keep a good home environment running on all cylinders: something has to give. What gives is the quality of life within the home. So, there's the reason for the food waste: put microwaved crap on the table and only so much of it can be eaten before you vomit. Your solution is to bin the excess. And there always is excess if you buy pre-prepared, especially if in portions for one.
When nature was respected, when girls were dressed in pink and allowed to desire dolls, and little boys in blue to desire the girls, life was assured. For many years, now, the natural order had been sacrificed to fake, progressive intelligence based on "research" by scholars who have probably never had natural families of their own. Unisex is the new name of the child game, and the confused results of that philosophy now go on fancy dess parades and make utter fools of themselves.
-
Ray, you have no right to suggest that one man's fun car is another person's lack of shoes. During my eight years as a kid in India, none of the chauffeurs wore them when driving.
If you have looked closely at the feet of those who walk barefoot you will have noticed that their soles are as thick and strong as the soles of your tennis shoes. I can't vouch for Mrs Marcos, of course, but she lived several thousand miles away. ;-)
Anyway, the waste of food every day in the West is not the realm only of the rich; more, I would suggest it's the result of all those working wives who never did have the opportunity to learn to cook properly, and who ended up working outwith the home because the cost of living grew, automatically, to suit the spending capacity of the two-earner household, leaving them no choice at all but to go out there, find alternative jobs and work.
Where once the husband could earn enough to preserve his pride, feed his family, the double-earner phenomenon skewered the natural way of things and everybody, includng the singles, ended up having to earn more to stand still. You can't do that and keep a good home environment running on all cylinders: something has to give. What gives is the quality of life within the home. So, there's the reason for the food waste: put microwaved crap on the table and only so much of it can be eaten before you vomit. Your solution is to bin the excess. And there always is excess if you buy pre-prepared, especially if in portions for one.
When nature was respected, when girls were dressed in pink and allowed to desire dolls, and little boys in blue to desire the girls, life was assured. For many years, now, the natural order had been sacrificed to fake, progressive intelligence based on "research" by scholars who have probably never had natural families of their own. Unisex is the new name of the child game, and the confused results of that philosophy now go on fancy dess parades and make utter fools of themselves.
What's worrying is that I'm not 100% sure you're joking.
-
What's worrying is that I'm not 100% sure you're joking.
Don't worry about it Jerry, you are probably too young to see it yet. Worldly wisdom comes very late in life, often when it's too late. To put a valid photographic slant on it, just to remain relevant, it was Saul Leiter who pronounced that nobody knows what's what, and that by the time that they do, it's too late.
Don't be harsh on yourself; go with the flow.
:-)
-
When nature was respected, when girls were dressed in pink and allowed to desire dolls, and little boys in blue to desire the girls, life was assured. For many years, now, the natural order had been sacrificed to fake, progressive intelligence based on "research" by scholars who have probably never had natural families of their own. Unisex is the new name of the child game, and the confused results of that philosophy now go on fancy dess parades and make utter fools of themselves.
Assuming you're not pulling our legs, the assumptions you're making here, that things were better back in the day, may be incorrect. Maybe you just remember them that way, but that others had a different experience.
Re-watch this, it is instructive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY).
-
Assuming you're not pulling our legs, the assumptions you're making here, that things were better back in the day, may be incorrect. Maybe you just remember them that way, but that others had a different experience.
Re-watch this, it is instructive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY).
Unfortunately, I can't watch it right now because I had decided not to take 'phones with me when going out to eat. Watching without hearing isn't going to be much use...
Rob
-
Ray, you have no right to suggest that one man's fun car is another person's lack of shoes. During my eight years as a kid in India, none of the chauffeurs wore them when driving.
Of course I have that right, but I didn't make that suggestion, equating fun cars with shoes. I suggested that the money spent on one lady's accumulation of 1000 pairs of shoes, most of which would have never been used, and are now rotting away in a museum, could have been better spent on providing practical shoes for those who couldn't afford any shoes at all.
Nevertheless, you have a point, that many poor people get used to wearing no shoes and develop thick soles which allow them to walk over rough terrain without discomfort. Giving shoes to people who don't need them or want them is also an inefficient use of resources, so maybe that was not the best example I used. I have perhaps erroneously assumed that people who walk over rough terrain, barefooted, perhaps carrying a heavy load, as in attached image which I took about 54 years ago in Nepal, would prefer to wear shoes. Maybe they wouldn't. ;)
-
... long term planning in the Warren Buffet universe seems to work very well, so maybe it's not the planning but the execution.
Ah, the eternal hope that “this time it will be different.” Out is curiosity, what exactly is WB’s long-term planning?
-
Ah, the eternal hope that “this time it will be different.” Out is curiosity, what exactly is WB’s long-term planning?
For example, buying millions shares of Apple last year when it was at $97.
-
... If you have looked closely at the feet of those who walk barefoot you will have noticed that their soles are as thick and strong as the soles of your tennis shoes...
(http://www.barefoothealing.com.au/assets/images/Legs-on-grass2.jpg) (http://www.barefoothealing.com.au/assets/images/electron-man2(1).jpg)
http://www.barefoothealing.com.au/v/what-is-earthing/22
:)
-
More Love Less Hate - hope that isn't hostile.
-
More Love Less Hate - hope that isn't hostile.
Not hostile at all, not even cowstyle, but hey, in this context of love and harmony, really and truly a bit out of left field (whatever that actually means in American sports)... which is simply another illustration of how insidious the use of transatlantic speech.
;-)
-
The main issue with footwear is the long-term bad effects of wearing high heels.
"High heels put the foot at an angle and pull muscles and joints out of alignment, so the effects aren’t limited to the feet,” Dr. Surve explained. “It’s not unusual for people who spend lots of time in high heels to have low back, neck and shoulder pain because the shoes disrupt the natural form of the body.”
http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-your-health/health-conditions-library/womens-health/Pages/high-heels.aspx
-
(http://www.barefoothealing.com.au/assets/images/Legs-on-grass2.jpg) (http://www.barefoothealing.com.au/assets/images/electron-man2(1).jpg)
http://www.barefoothealing.com.au/v/what-is-earthing/22
:)
Trust the ancients!
Actually, I think there's a study that proves that those who habitually walk sans shoes step into dog mess a great deal less than do their shod brothers and sisters. Perhaps it's a side-product of looking where one is going instead of at the iPhone. Trust in brands is often faith misplaced. Unless, of course, the iPhone is filming and monitoring the path ahead, in which case, slowing down to the comfortable speed of your own reactions may save the day and the ooze layer, either way.
However, in sunny Spain, the danger is not ooze: the danger is that sun-dried may cause you to break your ankle as you trip.
Best to leave the 'phone in the pocket.
Rob
-
The main issue with footwear is the long-term bad effects of wearing high heels.
"High heels put the foot at an angle and pull muscles and joints out of alignment, so the effects aren’t limited to the feet,” Dr. Surve explained. “It’s not unusual for people who spend lots of time in high heels to have low back, neck and shoulder pain because the shoes disrupt the natural form of the body.”
http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-your-health/health-conditions-library/womens-health/Pages/high-heels.aspx
Obviously written by a misogynist, Ray.
Out of school hours, my girlfriend and wife-to-be (one person) wore high heels from the day I met her when she was fifteen, and certainly before that, and she was as active as anybody wearing Nike or whatever, not that Nike existed back then, AFAIK, but Keds did. She never complained of pains, and had a beautiful carriage.(No, not the type with wheels.) Her voice was like music too, but I don't expect heels had much to do with that, but on the other hand, perhaps the habitual bearing of the thorax did affect things...
Why do some academics have this down on women looking good? The reality is that heels enhance posture, pushing out the breasts and creating a delightful shape to the lower back and the thrust of the pelvis. Just ask yourself: why do so many pin-up shots have nudes wearing high heels? Obviously, as my own snaps were mostly sea-based, my natural honesty precluded the use of a sheet of plywood beneath a scattering of grains. That would not have been ambiguous: that would have been deceitful. Hence, the dearth of such heels in my surviving pictures. But all my fashion ladies wore high heels, and looked the better for it. I exclude platforms from the general statement about heels: platforms were ever ugly and would have looked at home in any of Helmut Newton's medical/surgical extravaganzas.
-
Actually, I think there's a study that proves ...
No single study ever "proves" anything. Axiom of the scientific method.
And as for walking barefoot, people may indeed develop tough leathery soles, but there are several parasitic diseases that are contracted by walking barefoot on soil, hookworm being one of them.
-
Worldly wisdom comes very late in life, often when it's too late.
Senility seems a more accurate diagnosis.
-
Senility seems a more accurate diagnosis.
Not really; senility is beyond the control of the individual, whereas wisdom is more an aquired virtue dependent on the individual's personality and willingness to learn, or otherwise, from experience...
It's why there are few wise children under six.
;-(
-
And as for walking barefoot, people may indeed develop tough leathery soles, but there are several parasitic diseases that are contracted by walking barefoot on soil, hookworm being one of them.
Do not go barefoot into that good night.
-
Senility seems a more accurate diagnosis.
I can only wish you, myself, and everyone else the "senility" the two octogenarians on this forum have.
-
Not really; senility is beyond the control of the individual
Quite - hence my diagnosis - I can't really imagine why someone would choose to hold (and/or admit to holding) such views; I imagined it must be beyond control.
Perhaps I was too generous.
-
Obviously written by a misogynist, Ray.
Out of school hours, my girlfriend and wife-to-be (one person) wore high heels from the day I met her when she was fifteen, and certainly before that, and she was as active as anybody wearing Nike or whatever, not that Nike existed back then, AFAIK, but Keds did. She never complained of pains, and had a beautiful carriage.(No, not the type with wheels.) Her voice was like music too, but I don't expect heels had much to do with that, but on the other hand, perhaps the habitual bearing of the thorax did affect things...
Why do some academics have this down on women looking good? The reality is that heels enhance posture, pushing out the breasts and creating a delightful shape to the lower back and the thrust of the pelvis. Just ask yourself: why do so many pin-up shots have nudes wearing high heels? Obviously, as my own snaps were mostly sea-based, my natural honesty precluded the use of a sheet of plywood beneath a scattering of grains. That would not have been ambiguous: that would have been deceitful. Hence, the dearth of such heels in my surviving pictures. But all my fashion ladies wore high heels, and looked the better for it. I exclude platforms from the general statement about heels: platforms were ever ugly and would have looked at home in any of Helmut Newton's medical/surgical extravaganzas.
What? Do you also think the negative findings from studies on foot binding are not true?
You sound like my Grandmother when she was alive. "Michael (our doctor) must be loosing it. He told me I should stop wearing heels. I've been wearing heels since I was a teenager."
My Grandmother had horrible feet and developed bunions in her 50s & 60s.
-
Quite - hence my diagnosis - I can't really imagine why someone would choose to hold (and/or admit to holding) such views; I imagined it must be beyond control....;
From the OP article:
... the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, “I have no idea why you would believe that. You’re probably a racist senile.”
-
What? Do you also think the negative findings from studies on foot binding are not true?
You sound like my Grandmother when she was alive. "Michael (our doctor) must be loosing it. He told me I should stop wearing heels. I've been wearing heels since I was a teenager."
My Grandmother had horrible feet and developed bunions in her 50s & 60s.
I've seen the results of foot binding; I've seen the results of entire limb binding as aid to a career in begging. You have no idea the lengths that desperate people with no way out of their condition will go.
Grandmothers, of a certain period, may not have had the educational opportunities open to grandmothers of my current era, but boy, did many of them have oodles of common sense that is becoming a threatened resource today.
Be thankful to be living in the West.
Rob
-
I can only wish you, myself, and everyone else the "senility" the two octogenarians on this forum have.
Thank you, Slobodan, and just to prove you are right, I hold a certificate to prove my sanity. It came as one of the new tests to which drivers over 79 are subjected. According to that, I shall be perfectly sane for at least another year, at the termination of which, we shall see...
I wonder how many of the members here hold such an official confirmation of their good mental status?
:-)
-
Quite - hence my diagnosis - I can't really imagine why someone would choose to hold (and/or admit to holding) such views; I imagined it must be beyond control.
Perhaps I was too generous.
Have you considered your imagination may be just a tad limited?
:-)
-
And gifts are taxed just the same.
Not true, Slobodan. Under the UK tax system, anyway.
Jeremy
-
Not true, Slobodan. Under the UK tax system, anyway.
I stand corrected, at least in the sense I responded to Rob. Tax laws are notoriously complicated. In the US, one would pay a gift tax if his lifetime accumulated gifts GIVEN (not received) exceed $5.49 millions (2017). The reasoning behind such a tax is to prevent exactly the case we've been discussing, i.e. avoiding inheritance tax by gradually giving it away before death.
-
I've seen the results of foot binding; I've seen the results of entire limb binding as aid to a career in begging. You have no idea the lengths that desperate people with no way out of their condition will go.
Grandmothers, of a certain period, may not have had the educational opportunities open to grandmothers of my current era, but boy, did many of them have oodles of common sense that is becoming a threatened resource today.
Be thankful to be living in the West.
Rob
That was a great non-answer answer, aka a red herring.
-
That was a great non-answer answer, aka a red herring.
Well-smoked, I trust?
Rob
-
Well-smoked, I trust?
Rob
;)
To be honest, I've never had red herring, and would be curious to try it.
-
;)
To be honest, I've never had red herring, and would be curious to try it.
The French chap whose restaurant provides me with lunch most of the time does a salad with herring and artichokes; not smoked, dried out stuff, but fine, light grey slivers that melt in the mouth. I suppose it's a bit of an acquired taste, though, and I can't imagine that many Brits would find it attractive. But then, I also like to eat snails in butter and various herbs, but that has been off my range of possibilities for a long time, due to the butter/cholesterol catch. Bummer. They do snails here in Mallorca in a soup-like concoction, but the taste is entirely different and I don't enjoy it at all.
Rob
-
More proof of the Left’s inherent violence: 😉
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/biden-if-i-went-school-trump-id-take-him-behind-gym-and-beat-hell-out-him
-
I can only wish you, myself, and everyone else the "senility" the two octogenarians on this forum have.
Concur. If, in my 80s, I can ruminate and write like Rob, and wrangle and retort like Russ, I'll consider that a big quality-of-life bonus.
-
More proof of the Left’s inherent violence: 😉
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/biden-if-i-went-school-trump-id-take-him-behind-gym-and-beat-hell-out-him
To be fair, I'm about as pacifist as one can get without actually being a pacifist, and I want to pound Trump into the ground just about every single day. He's infuriating, and not just because of his politics.
-
... the butter/cholesterol catch. Bummer.
Rob
Medical science has known for a few years now that the cholesterol you eat has essentially nothing to do with the cholesterol in your blood. Yet the anti good food gang keeps promulgating this myth.
-
Medical science has known for a few years now that the cholesterol you eat has essentially nothing to do with the cholesterol in your blood. Yet the anti good food gang keeps promulgating this myth.
That makes interesting reading; I have a couple of appointments with the cardio lined up, the first one happens at 09.15hrs on the 26th, which happens to be the morning we lose an hour when the clocks get changed... That does not thrill me, especially as parking is always difficult in the mornings at the hospital; however, I must make a note to take up this matter about diets, as mine was advised about fifteen years ago.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Rob
-
Medical science has known for a few years now that the cholesterol you eat has essentially nothing to do with the cholesterol in your blood. Yet the anti good food gang keeps promulgating this myth.
There is certainly a lot of contradictory information published about causes and consequences of dietary cholesterol.
Here is a quote from Dr. Michael Greger:
egg yolks alone were associated with artery-clogging plaque buildup nearly two thirds as bad as smoking.
...
Yes, eggs are by far the number one source of cholesterol in the American diet, but some letters to the editor protested that dietary cholesterol may have very little impact on blood cholesterol levels, citing a study published in 1971 performed on eight people. But if one looks at dozens of studies together, covering hundreds of study subjects, we find that blood cholesterol concentration is “clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol.” In my video, Debunking Egg Industry Myths,
there is an extreme example just to illustrate: a year in the life of a study subject taken on and off eggs.
First, the researchers take him off eggs, putting him on a cholesterol-free diet, and his blood cholesterol plummets within just three weeks. Then they give him lots of eggs, and his cholesterol shoots back up, stays high until they take the eggs away and put him back on the cholesterol free diet, and so on and so forth. The researchers were essentially turning his high blood cholesterol on and off like a light switch (made out of eggs).
https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/08/18/dietary-cholesterol-affects-blood-cholesterol-levels/
-
Horse feathers!
The conclusion according to even that alarmist study:
"Our findings suggest that regular consumption of egg yolk should be avoided by persons at risk of cardiovascular disease ."
In other words, if your blood cholesterol is normal, your liver is processing dietary cholesterol normally, so you can eat all the eggs you want, says me. Eating eggs worse than smoking cigarettes? Give me a break.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/36/5e/59365e74e17aa896c250a137267ec4e9.jpg)
-
so you can eat all the eggs you want, says me. Eating eggs worse than smoking cigarettes? Give me a break.
I like your pictures, which are usually well done and to the point, unlike your emotional reactions which don't carry the same weight and logic as the aforementioned studies.
-
This study, that study... science is, as usual, rubiish. Eat and drink whatever you like, it is speaking English that kills you:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/futureofenterpriseit-150319112642-conversion-gate01/95/the-future-of-enterprise-it-6-ways-information-professionals-can-make-an-impact-2-638.jpg?cb=1426782525)
-
Eat and drink whatever you like, it is speaking English that kills you:
Must be, indeed, related to English, specifically to American English.
Mortality among Japanese living in USA and Hawaii is substantially higher than in Japan.
-
But it was fried in EVOO, so it must be good for you.
(http://www.pressroomvip.com/wp-content/uploads/giant-cheeseburger-with-egg-and-onion-rings.png)
-
But it was fried in EVOO, so it must be good for you.
(http://www.pressroomvip.com/wp-content/uploads/giant-cheeseburger-with-egg-and-onion-rings.png)
That's enough to make me want to throw up just by looking, even at selected slices of it.
How can people buy that crap? I'd rather just stay at home and make myself some spaghetti; at least the tomatoes are usually quite good.
:-(
-
That's enough to make me want to throw up just by looking, even at selected slices of it.
But it takes a talent and artistic ability to make such a creation. ;)
More about the smokers and cholesterolers:
Helmut Schmidt, the ex-chancellor of Germany was a heavy chain-smoker who smoked whenever and wherever he felt like it, even in non-smoking compartments of railway carriages. He lived to the ripe age of 96 in perfect health and in full posession of his faculties.
He was so clever, and so rude with it, that his listeners sometimes realised too late that they had been outwitted and insulted. Helmut Schmidt did not just find fools tiresome. He obliterated them. The facts were clear and the logic impeccable. So disagreement was a sign of idiocy. He detested the weakness of Jimmy Carter’s administration, and the two men got on badly. His foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, recalled that “Schmidt was of the opinion that the world would be fairer if he was president of the United States and Carter the German chancellor.”
On the other hand, his successor, Helmut Kohl who liked pig meat and rich cakes, suffered his last years in ill health and died at 87.
The other often quoted example was clinically obese Dr. Atkins with a history of heart problems. He died at 72 from a massive stroke.
So, a statement that the animal fat is worse than cigarette smoke, it's not that farfetched.
-
But it takes a talent and artistic ability to make such a creation. ;)
More about the smokers and cholesterolers:
Helmut Schmidt, the ex-chancellor of Germany was a heavy chain-smoker who smoked whenever and wherever he felt like it, even in non-smoking compartments of railway carriages. He lived to the ripe age of 96 in perfect health and in full posession of his faculties.
On the other hand, his successor, Helmut Kohl who liked pig meat and rich cakes, suffered his last years in ill health and died at 87.
The other often quoted example was clinically obese Dr. Atkins with a history of heart problems. He died at 72 from a massive stroke.
So, a statement that the animal fat is worse than cigarette smoke, it's not that farfetched.
Yes, but then again, Churchill smoked 8 cigars (usually double coronas or corona gigantes, pretty big cigars) and drank at least one bottle of wine plus a few cocktails every day, was fairly overweight, and lived into his 90s. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.
-
Yes, but then again, Churchill smoked 8 cigars (usually double coronas or corona gigantes, pretty big cigars) and drank at least one bottle of wine plus a few cocktails every day, was fairly overweight, and lived into his 90s. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.
AND he spoke English! 😀
-
To stay in good health:
-
Yes, but then again, Churchill smoked 8 cigars (usually double coronas or corona gigantes, pretty big cigars) and drank at least one bottle of wine plus a few cocktails every day, was fairly overweight, and lived into his 90s. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.
Churchill died at 90. Same age as Fidel Castro. Fidel started to smoke cigars at 14, but stopped the habit at 59, and followed mostly vegetarian diet. Perhaps more importantly, according to New York Post, he slept with 35,000 women in his life, adhering to a standard schedule - sleeping with at least two women a day for more than four decades, one for lunch and one for supper. Sometimes he even ordered one for breakfast.
-
..l Fidel started to smoke cigars at 14, but stopped the habit at 59, and followed mostly vegetarian diet. Perhaps more importantly, according to New York Post, he slept with 35,000 women in his life, adhering to a standard schedule - sleeping with at least two women a day for more than four decades, one for lunch and one for supper. Sometimes he even ordered one for breakfast.
Now, that rumor must be an example of “conservative hostility,” to bring the subject back to the OP :D
-
Are you saying that that's a conservative number?
-
Are you saying that that's a conservative number?
😀
-
according to New York Post
NYP just like Washington Times are the masterpieces
-
Now, that rumor
at Tito hit ~88 (?) only... I bet because local local tobacco was not on par with the Cuban one !
-
AND he spoke English!
the proper one, colour, etc ... that makes all the difference.
-
at Tito hit ~88 (?) only... I bet because local local tobacco was not on par with the Cuban one !
I don't think that was the issue ;)
(http://www.factbook.org/wikipedia/en/media/a/a3/castrtito.jpg)
-
There is no way that I can visualise it to be right to remove from anyone or their family the wealth they have earned honestly.
A friend recently shared a story about going to the gym, where she saw clients arrive with child domestic helpers to help with carrying weights to and from the storage rack. A rather striking visual. To be clear: these are not their own kids. These are kids rich families hire from poor families to work for them in their household.
Lots of forces in society that cause deep inter-generational wealth inequality are perfectly legal. In a dictatorship or feudal system the reasons are obvious and there is no need to go into them here. In a democracy, the rich catch politicians and get them to pass laws that benefit them.
So if you want to argue that anyone rich ought never to be subject to taxation that is designed to reduce wealth inequality, you'd better come up with a better argument than that "they earned it honestly!".
-
So if you want to argue that anyone rich ought never to be subject to taxation that is designed to reduce wealth inequality, you'd better come up with a better argument than that "they earned it honestly!".
Tax it when it's created (as is done) in a way to deal with that issue. Don't tax it again! But by all means tax the wealth created from that original capital, of course.
-
Yes, but then again, Churchill smoked 8 cigars (usually double coronas or corona gigantes, pretty big cigars) and drank at least one bottle of wine plus a few cocktails every day, was fairly overweight, and lived into his 90s. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.
Genetics.
-
Tax it when it's created (as is done) in a way to deal with that issue. Don't tax it again! ...
You seem to have overlooked my argument that it is a different taxpayer that is taxed, i.e., it is not money that it taxed, but person. "Double" taxation is nothing new. Corporations are taxed on their profit first, and then shareholders taxed again on the dividends (i.e., distributions of the already taxed profits).
-
You seem to have overlooked my argument that it is a different taxpayer that is taxed, i.e., it is not money that it taxed, but person. "Double" taxation is nothing new. Corporations are taxed on their profit first, and then shareholders taxed again on the dividends (i.e., distributions of the already taxed profits).
Not in a civilised country where tax credits (franking) exist. If the company has paid tax, then the dividends can be fully franked (i.e. tax free, in effect, for the shareholders). Or the company can not pay tax and then the shareholders have to.
Fix your tax system.
-
Genetics.
Genes play a role to some extent, but so do many other factors, such as diet and lifestyle. Actually, in many cases the eating habits and developed diseases are due more to the learned eating habits and diets, rather than to the genes.
Several well known cardiologists and proponents of plant-based diet, I believe, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, Dr. Colin Campbell and Dr. Neil Barnard descended from a long line of cattle ranchers and had seen their parents die early because of the heart disease. Dr. John McDougall had his heart attack at 18 which he attributed to his high animal product diet.
All these doctors (after seeing some biopsies and accumulated plaques in the arteries) have changed their lifestyles, switched to a plant-based diet and helped thousands of their patients as well. They are all in excellent health, the first two in their mid eighties, so their good health and longevity must be due to something else than their genes.
-
Yes, but the question was why some people seem to go against all the recommended diets and so on but still live long and healthy - the key factor there is likely genetics.
-
I don't think all the individual examples mentioned above prove anything. They can either be the norm or the exception. Nobody knows.
It's all about probabilities, smoking increases the probability of getting lung cancer, but it doesn't mean everybody who smokes will get it, only a larger percentage of people who smoke vs. people who don't smoke will develop lung cancer.
High animal fat diets increase the probability of heart failure, but it doesn't mean everybody who eats them will get it, only a larger percentage of people who have high animal fat diets vs. people who don't have that in their diet will develop heart problems.
etc. etc.
-
A friend recently shared a story about going to the gym, where she saw clients arrive with child domestic helpers to help with carrying weights to and from the storage rack. A rather striking visual. To be clear: these are not their own kids. These are kids rich families hire from poor families to work for them in their household.
Lots of forces in society that cause deep inter-generational wealth inequality are perfectly legal. In a dictatorship or feudal system the reasons are obvious and there is no need to go into them here. In a democracy, the rich catch politicians and get them to pass laws that benefit them.
So if you want to argue that anyone rich ought never to be subject to taxation that is designed to reduce wealth inequality, you'd better come up with a better argument than that "they earned it honestly!".
No, there is no need for further argument, and your comical example is neither relevant to the matter of punitive, vindictive taxation nor anything else beyond the fact that one party employs another, and that without that employment one of those parties would be unemployed.
Employment is about doing what you can to earn your crust. The level of your employment is generally directly linked to two basic things: your qualifications; your geography. If you choose to see into that race, colour, religion and all the rest of the social differences, that choice is yours to make and may or may not have anything to do with the reality of the individual's situation. If you think that those basics are skewed, then you may be right, but that is not the fault of the rich; it's the fault of those who are in charge of the money already raised via taxation, and the manner in which they spend it.
If you believe that it's all down to bought politicians, then all you have to do is produce honest politicans. Or, move to a country where all are equally poor except for the dictator and his support system.
It's my belief that all the misplaced angst about the über rich is that folks often think the rich just put all that bread into the bank and leave it there. No, they have it working, and when it works it creates work for the rest of us. And even those who do not further invest their capital by themselves can't avoid that capital working, because whichever bank into which they deposit it is doing just that: using that money in keeping companies and jobs going, new ones being created and the wheel spinning.
Rob
-
Funny how the fresh complaints against “wealth inequality” (a funny term in itself, presupposing that “wealth equality” is the ideal) are not so fresh: its best-by date expired in October 1917.
-
Churchill died at 90. Same age as Fidel Castro. Fidel started to smoke cigars at 14, but stopped the habit at 59, and followed mostly vegetarian diet. Perhaps more importantly, according to New York Post, he slept with 35,000 women in his life, adhering to a standard schedule - sleeping with at least two women a day for more than four decades, one for lunch and one for supper. Sometimes he even ordered one for breakfast.
Ahhh. Well, Castro was a fan of lanceros, which are a good deal thinner then what Churchill smoked. I'm guessing all those women must have made up for it.
-
Ahhh. Well, Castro was a fan of lanceros, which are a good deal thinner then what Churchill smoked. I'm guessing all those women must have made up for it.
But, what did those women actually do: did they get smoked, or what?
Assumptions, assumptions...
-
Funny how the fresh complaints against “wealth inequality” (a funny term in itself, presupposing that “wealth equality” is the ideal) are not so fresh: its best-by date expired in October 1917.
I have been working on a system of wealth management that isn't yet quite honed into a fine, polished state. I may leave that to others...
Basically, there could be a brand new set of rules that limits the top pay packet of any boss to, say, an arbitrary max. of 20million per annum. There could be a stepped, fixed scale of payments to the staff in the lesser grades, sex-agnostic, of course, depending on position within the firm. Equally, there would be a maximum proportion of profits to be split between the shareholder elements, with another proportion going to any agreed employees pension fund. The excess would be required to be spent on the development of the company itself.
Though I see no fault with saved wealth going from generation to generation (a little more of that would have been nice!) there also seems little point in anyone having more than that certain number of millions per year. If you want to buy the 30million yacht, just save for a year or two, and there, you have it. You will also appreciate it more!
That way, the wealth does get spread around, and not concentrated in the tender care of a small selection of people.
You read it here first, another reason to stay with LuLa.
:-)
-
To get back closer to the topic, the main problem as I see it is the stupid wastage of resources by wealthy people who have far more money than they need.
When a billionaire spends a thousand dollars, it's equivalent to a millionaire spending just one dollar. A fancy, gold-plated, jeweled, designer watch that cost say $100,000, is of no concern to the billionaire. It's equivalent to a millionaire buying a $100 watch.
An interesting example of such stupidity and wastefulness is the ongoing investigation into the watch possessions of the deputy prime minister of Thailand, General Prawit Wongsuwan.
Here's the story:
"The scandal began when General Prawit was photographed shielding his eyes from the sun during a photo shoot, revealing a fancy-looking watch.
It was identified by Thais on social media as a Richard Mille RM29, worth $100,000."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/thailands-deputy-pm-prawit-wongsuwans-watch-collection/9359130
In the news report it is mentioned that this deputy prime minister appears to own about 25 such watches with an estimated total value of $1.5 million.
In a semi-developed country like Thailand, where the minimum wage is a mere $10 per day, the fact that the deputy prime minister in a military organisation that ousted the previous democratic ruling party on the basis it was corrupt, is showing off watches on his wrist, worth $100,000 each, on average, is a total disgrace.
The fact that he might even retain his position of power on the grounds that the watches were loaned to him by certain wealthy friends, is even more of a disgrace.
-
To get back closer to the topic, the main problem as I see it is the stupid wastage of resources by wealthy people who have far more money than they need.
When a billionaire spends a thousand dollars, it's equivalent to a millionaire spending just one dollar. A fancy, gold-plated, jeweled, designer watch that cost say $100,000, is of no concern to the billionaire. It's equivalent to a millionaire buying a $100 watch.
An interesting example of such stupidity and wastefulness is the ongoing investigation into the watch possessions of the deputy prime minister of Thailand, General Prawit Wongsuwan.
Here's the story:
"The scandal began when General Prawit was photographed shielding his eyes from the sun during a photo shoot, revealing a fancy-looking watch.
It was identified by Thais on social media as a Richard Mille RM29, worth $100,000."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/thailands-deputy-pm-prawit-wongsuwans-watch-collection/9359130
In the news report it is mentioned that this deputy prime minister appears to own about 25 such watches with an estimated total value of $1.5 million.
In a semi-developed country like Thailand, where the minimum wage is a mere $10 per day, the fact that the deputy prime minister in a military organisation that ousted the previous democratic ruling party on the basis it was corrupt, is showing off watches on his wrist, worth $100,000 each, on average, is a total disgrace.
The fact that he might even retain his position of power on the grounds that the watches were loaned to him by certain wealthy friends, is even more of a disgrace.
But Ray, that's a tale about political despots, which we all understand are given to moments of greed...
However, the relative appetites of the very rich business people, as distinct from political gangsterism, makes your complaint feel somewhat motivated by less than altruistic emotions too.
Why the problem when, as you know, what goes around comes around, and that wealth is always working away in the background, making things, even more silly, unaffordable designer dresses for wives who look bad in anything, and by the same token, create, through their self-awareness, self-help sets of motivations, even more tiers of jobs, silly or otherwise. As I say, it all circulates.
Be happy for the poor rich who offer us so many ways to make something too. Especially do they help artists such as us.
:-)
-
People who earn more than $75,000 are no happier than those who earn less, so taxing the rich more won't hurt them a single bit.
https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-price-of-happiness-science-confirms-it-is-75000-per-year/ (https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-price-of-happiness-science-confirms-it-is-75000-per-year/)
(https://www.las2orillas.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/opulencia-700x514.jpg)
-
Well, I read through the article but it didn't convince me one little bit.
Happiness is not a normal state of being. A normal state of being is equilibrium, where one is neither happy nor unhappy. Happiness is the product of a surprise, which may come to one as simply a sudden idea about a loved one, a win on the lottery, or just walking by the sea on a warm, sunny day, the wind in your hair (I have to exclude myself a little bit here) and perhaps not a penny in your pocket.
It most certainly is not a permanent condition imposed by wealth. Wealth simply makes unhappiness less uncomfortable in the physical sense; you can weep into your martini.
In conclusion, happiness is perhaps but a rush of positive emotion.
Rob
-
No, there is no need for further argument, and your comical example is neither relevant to the matter of punitive, vindictive taxation nor anything else beyond the fact that one party employs another, and that without that employment one of those parties would be unemployed.
The example is not comical. It's reality, unfortunately. But you wouldn't know about that, because you choose to look in the other direction.
-
Yes, but the question was why some people seem to go against all the recommended diets and so on but still live long and healthy - the key factor there is likely genetics.
And luck. Never underestimate the influence of luck on life expectancy.
Jeremy
-
The example is not comical. It's reality, unfortunately. But you wouldn't know about that, because you choose to look in the other direction.
Even if my head were capable of doing a Beetlejuice, the illustration would be adrift because it functions or, rather, predicates it's position on the possibility of happiness being a relatively constant condition for some sectors of earners, and attempting to make a connection between people who decide to make particular decisions, simply because they can, and that impossible to define "politically correct" use of, and relationship between, earning power and use of earned income. They are a string of red herrings still in the smoker.
As I indicated, happiness is not a constant state, and it can be experienced by pauper as well as by zillionaire. There is no firm ground for anything that attempts to make relatively fixed correlationships as does the article you quoted.
Now, if you want to change the discussion to comfort rather than happiness, indeed money can work natural wonders. But comfort and happiness are not the same thing. So, any implied direct and exclusive relationship between money and happiness is bogus.
-
And luck. Never underestimate the influence of luck on life expectancy.
Jeremy
I'll endorse Jeremy on that one, with a slight modification. I just turned 88. I started smoking when I was 16. Quit when I was 55. Flew fighter bombers, and later bush planes into and out of small northern dirt strips. Went to war three times. Had a whole array of close calls. I'm still here.
I guess you can call it luck, but I think there's more to it than that. The hairy experience I remember most of all out of a plethora of hairy experiences was the time in gunnery school when I was scheduled to fly one of our antique F-80's on a high-angle dive bombing exercise. I did the usual walk-around, checking for fuel leaks, popped fasteners, tires properly inflated, etc. As I walked by the tail I gave the elevators a flip. They locked in the up position. I aborted my flight and reported the problem. The school grounded all the f-80's immediately and checked the elevator assemblies in all of them. Mine had a counterweight that had come loose. If I'd flown that airplane I'd be dead. Flipping the elevators wasn't part of the checklist, nor was it something I'd ever done before.
I think something guided my hand when I reached up and flipped that elevator. That one's not the only time I should have bought the farm but didn't, but it's the one that makes me shiver when I think about it. I guess you can call it luck if you want to.
-
And luck. Never underestimate the influence of luck on life expectancy.
Indeed!
-
I'll endorse Jeremy on that one, with a slight modification. I just turned 88. I started smoking when I was 16. Quit when I was 55. Flew fighter bombers, and later bush planes into and out of small northern dirt strips. Went to war three times. Had a whole array of close calls. I'm still here.
I guess you can call it luck, but I think there's more to it than that. The hairy experience I remember most of all out of a plethora of hairy experiences was the time in gunnery school when I was scheduled to fly one of our antique F-80's on a high-angle dive bombing exercise. I did the usual walk-around, checking for fuel leaks, popped fasteners, tires properly inflated, etc. As I walked by the tail I gave the elevators a flip. They locked in the up position. I aborted my flight and reported the problem. The school grounded all the f-80's immediately and checked the elevator assemblies in all of them. Mine had a counterweight that had come loose. If I'd flown that airplane I'd be dead. Flipping the elevators wasn't part of the checklist, nor was it something I'd ever done before.
I think something guided my hand when I reached up and flipped that elevator. That one's not the only time I should have bought the farm but didn't, but it's the one that makes me shiver when I think about it. I guess you can call it luck if you want to.
I think that's called experience, Russ. Subconscious, unintended, but skillful and knowledgeable response to environment due to specific experience (and ability, actually). I remember reading about Chuck Yeager and the most common thing people said about him was that he ALWAYS had more options than everyone else. Those options came from experience and ability (and extremely good long sight, apparently). Of course, if you're so inclined you can put it down to divine providence, but that's not my thing (if there's free will, why would He be stepping in only in some cases but letting others die - seems unreasonable in the extreme). I've never been to war or anything of the sort, but even with 40 years less experience than you, I have had numerous occasions in which seemingly insignificant or almost whimsical decisions have been life saving in retrospect, or where circumstance conspired to have safety and saviour there at the right time (either for me, or for me to provide it to others). I think it's a natural human process to attempt to explain everything, and so we attribute such things to some sort of cause - whatever that may be from time to time.
But also, as Jeremy said, luck. Pure unadulterated random chance - it's a biggy.
-
Even if my head were capable of doing a Beetlejuice, the illustration would be adrift because it functions or, rather, predicates it's position on the possibility of happiness being a relatively constant condition for some sectors of earners, and attempting to make a connection between people who decide to make particular decisions, simply because they can, and that impossible to define "politically correct" use of, and relationship between, earning power and use of earned income. They are a string of red herrings still in the smoker.
As I indicated, happiness is not a constant state, and it can be experienced by pauper as well as by zillionaire. There is no firm ground for anything that attempts to make relatively fixed correlationships as does the article you quoted.
Now, if you want to change the discussion to comfort rather than happiness, indeed money can work natural wonders. But comfort and happiness are not the same thing. So, any implied direct and exclusive relationship between money and happiness is bogus.
One moment you're talking about "punitive, vindictive taxation", and now this..... it seems you're truly in your own world.
-
I think that's called experience, Russ. Subconscious, unintended, but skillful and knowledgeable response to environment due to specific experience (and ability, actually). I remember reading about Chuck Yeager and the most common thing people said about him was that he ALWAYS had more options than everyone else. Those options came from experience and ability (and extremely good long sight, apparently). Of course, if you're so inclined you can put it down to divine providence, but that's not my thing (if there's free will, why would He be stepping in only in some cases but letting others die - seems unreasonable in the extreme). I've never been to war or anything of the sort, but even with 40 years less experience than you, I have had numerous occasions in which seemingly insignificant or almost whimsical decisions have been life saving in retrospect, or where circumstance conspired to have safety and saviour there at the right time (either for me, or for me to provide it to others). I think it's a natural human process to attempt to explain everything, and so we attribute such things to some sort of cause - whatever that may be from time to time.
But also, as Jeremy said, luck. Pure unadulterated random chance - it's a biggy.
Hi Phil, I averted disaster a number of other times, often I'm sure through experience and quick thinking. But the thing that grabs me about that particular one is that there's no item on the checklist that says "flip the elevators," and I'd never done it before. As far as I know, nobody did it. It was just a casual flip. There was no reason to do it. You can be sure I always did that from then on.
I don't understand those things either, but I have to believe what happened was more than luck. I certainly think there's a reason for all that, but I also think it's a reason no one in this world can understand.
-
One moment you're talking about "punitive, vindictive taxation", and now this..... it seems you're truly in your own world.
Naturally; you widen the scope by moving the posts, so if I am going to respond, then there's little option but to cover the ground you describe. What else?
:-)
-
To get back closer to the topic, the main problem as I see it is the stupid wastage of resources by wealthy people who have far more money than they need.
When a billionaire spends a thousand dollars, it's equivalent to a millionaire spending just one dollar. A fancy, gold-plated, jeweled, designer watch that cost say $100,000, is of no concern to the billionaire. It's equivalent to a millionaire buying a $100 watch.
As the guy who started the argument about essentially confiscatory taxes above a certain amount to prevent multi-generational unearned riches (an idea that I advocate, unlike persons who prefer to be subjects rather than free men) I have to say I completely disagree with you. When a billionaire buys a $100,000 watch, that money's not just wasted -- it goes to all the people who have the jobs that produced the watch -- the watch-making company, the watch-makers themselves, the machinists, all the way down to the company janitors. The purchase may be in some sense meaningless to the billionaire, but it's not to the people who made the watch. I read somewhere that Johnny Depp and a bunch of friends were in a high-end restaurant in England, and Depp ordered and paid for a $24,000 bottle of wine. The money went to the restaurant, the servers, the winery,etc. So good on Johnny. He earned the money, let him spend it. It's much better spent, that it is stuck in a hedge fund somewhere, where the fund buys companies, strips them of all value, then shuts them down and kills the jobs. (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney.)
-
As the guy who started the argument about essentially confiscatory taxes above a certain amount to prevent multi-generational unearned riches (an idea that I advocate, unlike persons who prefer to be subjects rather than free men) I have to say I completely disagree with you. When a billionaire buys a $100,000 watch, that money's not just wasted -- it goes to all the people who have the jobs that produced the watch -- the watch-making company, the watch-makers themselves, the machinists, all the way down to the company janitors. The purchase may be in some sense meaningless to the billionaire, but it's not to the people who made the watch. I read somewhere that Johnny Depp and a bunch of friends were in a high-end restaurant in England, and Depp ordered and paid for a $24,000 bottle of wine. The money went to the restaurant, the servers, the winery,etc. So good on Johnny. He earned the money, let him spend it. It's much better spent, that it is stuck in a hedge fund somewhere, where the fund buys companies, strips them of all value, then shuts them down and kills the jobs. (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney.)
John, I'm with you regarding the watch, but not the wine.
The watch can be handed down or traded-in, if not to be retained as part of a collection, but the wine? That's just a rip-off with the price going into mark-up, not production. As doubtful as the buyer's ability to taste a difference may or may not be, the final disappointment (or deliverance) comes a short while later when if flows out of his dick into either a replica Duchamp if he's still on his feet, or into a toilet pan if he's seated in order not to fall down; there's even a chance it could flow down behind a tree or a hedge and vanish, forever, back into the sod from which it sprang, give a few kilometres or more.
I'm all for the freedom of choice to do that silly thing, but I can't accept it as being as valid a choice as the puchase of the timepiece.
;-)
-
As the guy who started the argument about essentially confiscatory taxes above a certain amount to prevent multi-generational unearned riches (an idea that I advocate, unlike persons who prefer to be subjects rather than free men) I have to say I completely disagree with you. When a billionaire buys a $100,000 watch, that money's not just wasted -- it goes to all the people who have the jobs that produced the watch -- the watch-making company, the watch-makers themselves, the machinists, all the way down to the company janitors. The purchase may be in some sense meaningless to the billionaire, but it's not to the people who made the watch. I read somewhere that Johnny Depp and a bunch of friends were in a high-end restaurant in England, and Depp ordered and paid for a $24,000 bottle of wine. The money went to the restaurant, the servers, the winery,etc. So good on Johnny. He earned the money, let him spend it. It's much better spent, that it is stuck in a hedge fund somewhere, where the fund buys companies, strips them of all value, then shuts them down and kills the jobs. (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney.)
I have to say, John, that you have completely missed my point about efficient use of resources. I'm surprised, but never mind. I understand that not everyone is as smart as me. ;D
The fundamental basis of all wealth and prosperity is energy, in combination with the innovative and efficient uses of that energy.
The forms of energy I'm referring to are coal, oil, gas, solar, windmill, hydro, and most importantly, food, and so on.
The distribution of that energy is expressed in terms of money. For example, lets compare a car factory in America with a car factory in China. Let's assume that the sophistication of the production technology is the same, and let's assume that the energy costs, such as electricity to operate the mechanization and robots, are the same.
Let's inquire why the Chinese cars could be cheaper. They are cheaper because China has produced cars using less energy, that is, in a more efficient way. How have they used less energy? Answer, by apportioning less energy to the human workers in the car factory. They pay them lower wages. Money directly equates to energy.
The higher paid American worker uses more energy. If he's sensible, he uses that energy efficiently. He drives to work in a basic and practical car. The Chinese worker, equally sensible, might not be able to afford a car. He cycles to work on his bicycle. He uses less energy. The energy he uses is equivalent to a small amount of food.
People who manufacture $100,000 watches get paid wages, of course. If they are sensible, they'll use those wages in a productive manner, to buy a house, clothes, car, food, and support their children. However, the point you have missed is the lack of any productive nature and usefulness of the final product, the expensive watch.
The Roman soldier who spends his days picking up pebbles from the beach, then placing them back again, also gets paid a useful wage that helps him to support his family, if he has one. But don't you see, if the Roman soldiers were instructed to help the villagers to build dam walls and improve their infrastructure, that would be a more efficient and productive use of their time?
People who spend huge sums of money (energy) on useless products, such as fancy watches, are plain idiots.
All the problems we have in the world, are due to too many idiots and nutcases having too much influence. Sorry to be so blunt, but those are the facts, in my very humble opinion, of course. ;)
-
And I have to say that this is the most hilarious discussion I've seen in a long time. Thomas Sowell would roll on the floor laughing.
-
... People who spend huge sums of money (energy) on useless products, such as fancy watches, are plain idiots...
Does that apply to buyers of MFDB too?
-
Does that apply to buyers of MFDB too?
No. Cameras are useful tools. MFDB cameras tend to have better SNR and higher resolution. $100,000 watches do not tell time more accurately, or more easily, or more conveniently. They're a pure waste of resources (ie. money).
-
No. Cameras are useful tools. MFDB cameras tend to have better SNR and higher resolution. $100,000 watches do not tell time more accurately, or more easily, or more conveniently. They're a pure waste of resources (ie. money).
Oh, but they do (tell time more accurately, at least measured against their peers - mechanical ones). Besides, there is a beauty in engineering, just like with Leicas. Or cars. Today's smartphone pics are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from MFDB. And yet, there are people who would appreciate the difference. Otherwise, we would be all driving one or two car models, wearing one or two types of watches, etc. Just like in Soviet Union.
-
The most efficient use of resources would, at a stroke, close dowm LuLa, Facebook, Twitter, all of the useless channels via which people show their pets, their babies, their breakfast, their sex bits, their lunch, their coffee and perhaps, if still awake, their dinner. And of course, all private websites, being nothing but a massage of the personal ego, would be closed immediately.
Why? Consider the fuel used to create and drive all that electricity and data storage and frequent distribution of said data... apart from the production of all that driver/storage energy, think of the heat that it creates and the further energy consumed cooling it all down again.
Rob
-
hmm...A return to the pastoral life may happen eventually. But not with our current population size.
-
Oh, but they do (tell time more accurately, at least measured against their peers - mechanical ones).
What nonsense. Who buys mechanical watches nowadays, except as antiques. My own watch is a Slazenger which I bought about 10 years ago in Thailand for about $50. I never change the time because I can't be bothered reminding myself how to do it. I have too many camera adjustments to attend to. ;D
After 10 years and one change of battery, the time is still accurate within a minute. The watch also has an automatic adjustment for leap years so the date is always accurate. Attached is a picture of it. As you can see, the excellent resolution of my camera has revealed a bit of dirt, which probably got there because I'm not in the habit of swimming to 100 meter depths. ;D
Besides, there is a beauty in engineering, just like with Leicas. Or cars.
Of course there is. That's a side feature or bonus. The main purpose is functionality.
Today's smartphone pics are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from MFDB.
And yet, there are people who would appreciate the difference. Otherwise, we would be all driving one or two car models, wearing one or two types of watches, etc. Just like in Soviet Union.
Not at all. We succeed as individuals, tribes and nations, due to our ability to design and/or use the best tool for the job. The smartphone is an extremely useful tool because of its light weight, convenience of use, and connection with a world-wide network of communication. For vane people who are mostly interested in taking photos of themselves, or the food they are about to eat, it's an ideal photographic tool.
For those who are interested in photographing distant wildlife and birds, it's a piss-awful tool. The MFDB, as I understand, is a better tool for the production of realistically sharp and clean shots for huge billboards, or huge prints covering, say, an entire wall in your home, and the APS-C format with long telephoto lens would be better for taking detailed shots of craters on the moon. But you know that already, don't you, Slobodan? ;)
We should also not discount the fact that photographers who already own thousands of dollars worth of MF film cameras and lenses would find the cost of a digital back justified, to enable them to continue using their high quality film equipment in the digital era. There's a practical purpose involved.
Have I succeeding in 'Trumping' your inane arguments, Slobodan? ;D
-
I have to say, John, that you have completely missed my point about efficient use of resources. I'm surprised, but never mind. I understand that not everyone is as smart as me. ;D
The fundamental basis of all wealth and prosperity is energy, in combination with the innovative and efficient uses of that energy.
The forms of energy I'm referring to are coal, oil, gas, solar, windmill, hydro, and most importantly, food, and so on.
The distribution of that energy is expressed in terms of money. For example, lets compare a car factory in America with a car factory in China. Let's assume that the sophistication of the production technology is the same, and let's assume that the energy costs, such as electricity to operate the mechanization and robots, are the same.
Let's inquire why the Chinese cars could be cheaper. They are cheaper because China has produced cars using less energy, that is, in a more efficient way. How have they used less energy? Answer, by apportioning less energy to the human workers in the car factory. They pay them lower wages. Money directly equates to energy.
The higher paid American worker uses more energy. If he's sensible, he uses that energy efficiently. He drives to work in a basic and practical car. The Chinese worker, equally sensible, might not be able to afford a car. He cycles to work on his bicycle. He uses less energy. The energy he uses is equivalent to a small amount of food.
People who manufacture $100,000 watches get paid wages, of course. If they are sensible, they'll use those wages in a productive manner, to buy a house, clothes, car, food, and support their children. However, the point you have missed is the lack of any productive nature and usefulness of the final product, the expensive watch.
The Roman soldier who spends his days picking up pebbles from the beach, then placing them back again, also gets paid a useful wage that helps him to support his family, if he has one. But don't you see, if the Roman soldiers were instructed to help the villagers to build dam walls and improve their infrastructure, that would be a more efficient and productive use of their time?
People who spend huge sums of money (energy) on useless products, such as fancy watches, are plain idiots.
All the problems we have in the world, are due to too many idiots and nutcases having too much influence. Sorry to be so blunt, but those are the facts, in my very humble opinion, of course. ;)
This argument is too simplistic to be taken seriously and leaves out a lot of other factors. The idea that money is directly represent by energy, and the amount of energy one can buy with it, is false.
Money is the byproduct of interest created by investments, and those investments do not necessarily involve energy, or only energy. And since money is created, it is not finite, unlike energy.
Furthermore, the idea that the variation of prices between Chinese goods and USA ones is based solely on the cost of energy does not make sense. Although China may be better at using energy efficiently, or vis versa, the base cost of energy is each country is similar. We live in a global economy and energy sources, that are mobile such as fossil fuels, goes to the highest bidder.
The differences in cost between the two Countries have many more factors, much of which can be attributed to the cost of living in each country and how much one thinks he should get. (Branding and brand value is another.) This is not just attributed to energy, but an overall mentality in those countries.
A great example of this would be looking at farm workers in the USA. Why are so many Mexican immigrants? Because they will take less then an American worker. Why is this; is it because the American uses more energy to do the same job? No, it is because Americans feel they deserve more.
Also, your example of high end watches and products of similar stature, and restricting their purchase, leaves out one very important point, that innovation often is first introduced at the high end. By restricting the wealthy's ability to purchase such objects will greatly reduce innovation and rob the future generations (when the cost of such innovations come down) the ability to benefit from those innovations.
Now you may argue that any innovations brought fourth of the making of watches would not be of interest, but this would ignore the history of innovations. It is not uncommon for an innovation being developed in some mundane industry and then being applied elsewhere only for it to change the world.
-
This argument is too simplistic to be taken seriously and leaves out a lot of other factors. The idea that money is directly represent by energy, and the amount of energy one can buy with it, is false.
Money is the byproduct of interest created by investments, and those investments do not necessarily involve energy, or only energy. And since money is created, it is not finite, unlike energy.
Yes, it is sometimes false. When money is no longer represented by energy supplies, we have an economic collapse and the financial system has to be readjusted. Can you think of a single activity in a modern society that does not require energy? Can you think of a single use of money, that is, the practical application of money to purchase something, that does not involve energy?
Consider the most basic example of a person walking down the street. How does he get the energy to walk? From the food he eats, of course. In a modern society, food requires energy to produce; energy to build the tractors; energy to create the fertilizers; gasoline to fuel the farm machinery; trucks and fuel to transport the harvest to the market; electricity to run the refrigerators that store the food; and so on.
Of course, it's even more complex than that, because at each stage of the production and distribution of the food, there are workers involved who are paid money, or wages, and the energy supplies related to the expenditure of those wages are a part of the total amount of energy required to produce the food, which brings us to the following point.
Furthermore, the idea that the variation of prices between Chinese goods and USA ones is based solely on the cost of energy does not make sense. Although China may be better at using energy efficiently, or vis versa, the base cost of energy is each country is similar. We live in a global economy and energy sources, that are mobile such as fossil fuels, goes to the highest bidder.
You seem to have missed the point that the wages paid to the workers involved in any manufacturing process are a part of the total cost of production. A factory in China which uses the same machinery as an equivalent factory in the US, and has access to fuel and electricity at the same cost, can only produce the manufactured product more efficiently if its workers are more efficient.
There are two basic ways in which the Chinese worker can be more efficient. He can work more competently, make fewer errors, be quicker on his feet, and accomplish more; or he can do the same work with equal competence but with an expenditure of less energy, that is, he works for lower wages in real terms, taking the cost of living into consideration. Got it? ;)
Also, your example of high end watches and products of similar stature, and restricting their purchase, leaves out one very important point, that innovation often is first introduced at the high end. By restricting the wealthy's ability to purchase such objects will greatly reduce innovation and rob the future generations (when the cost of such innovations come down) the ability to benefit from those innovations.
No. I'm not by any means against innovation. I'm making a distinction between useful, or potentially useful products, and products which serve little purpose, except to flatter the vanity and ego of wealthy people who don't have the nous, the intelligence, the empathy and humanity, to use their resources more constructively for the betterment of mankind.
I recall around 20 years ago or more, the first digital cameras were ridiculously expensive, but it was clear they were a big step forward in at least 'potential' efficiency. The cumbersome and inefficient process of manufacturing and developing film had been removed.
My example of the ridiculously expensive watches that have got the deputy prime Minister of Thailand into trouble, is not an example of innovative technology. The reason such watches are so ridiculously expensive, is not because they allow the wearer to communicate with astronauts on the moon, for example, or have some other completely new and useful feature like the first digital cameras.
They are expensive for purposes of exclusivity. When a person wears a Richard Mille watch, assembled in a sapphire crystal case, for example, which costs more than most people spend on their homes (actual price $1,650,000), the wearer is simply sending a symbolic message to everyone who witnesses him wearing the expensive watch, that he is such a wealthy and successful and smart person that he belongs to an exclusive club and can afford to spend over a million dollars on a mere watch.
Such behaviour is disgraceful in my view.
-
... Have I succeeding in 'Trumping' your inane arguments, Slobodan? ;D
No, but you did manage to drown me in your verbose deluge ;)
-
No, but you did manage to drown me in the your verbose deluge ;)
Oops! Sorry! I thought I was being very precise, succinct and rational, as usual. ;D
-
Oops! Sorry! I thought I was being very precise, succinct and rational, as usual. ;D
And, as I pointed out: along with the rest of us, using up masses of electricity both in the writing, the transmission and the storage and eventual reading in hundreds of homes and offices of all this stuff which, in the final analysis, creates little but hot air on all sides and alters nobody's point of view but, in the case of office readers, increases the company overheads and forces eventual rises in costs...
;-(
Rob
-
And, as I pointed out: along with the rest of us, using up masses of electricity both in the writing, the transmission and the storage and eventual reading in hundreds of homes and offices of all this stuff which, in the final analysis, creates little but hot air on all sides and alters nobody's point of view but, in the case of office readers, increases the company overheads and forces eventual rises in costs...
;-(
Rob
Alters nobody's point of view? Why would you think that, Rob? Would it be correct to deduce that because you never change your point of view, you assume that other people never change their point of view?
Life should be a continuous learning process which must involve a change of view as one becomes aware of new ideas, new information, new interpretations, and new experiences. At least it is for me.
-
Since we’ve already veered from the OP topic, and into the rich and their consumption, workers’ “energy,” etc.
-
Alters nobody's point of view? Why would you think that, Rob? Would it be correct to deduce that because you never change your point of view, you assume that other people never change their point of view?
Life should be a continuous learning process which must involve a change of view as one becomes aware of new ideas, new information, new interpretations, and new experiences. At least it is for me.
That's just because, relatively speaking, you are still between young and old.
Wasn't it Oscar W. who declared: "I am not young enough to know everything."? Having run the race right back - almost - to square one, I now realise that yes, I was generally right first time around, and only messing with the digital world sidetracked me for a little while. The thing is, nobody can be an expert in everything, so the concept of new and the perceived value of new, must reside within the life experiences and interests of the individual. Cars? I'd still take a '59 Coupe de Ville before the latest range-topping Mercedes. New is often simply bland and expensive, and "better" constitutes such a wide judgement call where, really, there can be no absolute wearer of the crown.
The weakness in your new argument resides in the concept of new: of itself, I find new is seldom better than what was before, outwith some sciences, I guess, but that's nothing to do with my head and experience.
As for my changing my own of point of view: hardly ever, and then only from my personal experiences. For example: I thought I'd buy Ernst Haas' latest posthumous book, Color Correction, which I did, only to wish, after repeated efforts to stay with it, that nope, I had made a mistake. He was great in many ways, a long-time hero of mine, but now absolutely converted to Leiter and Faurer, his work in roughly similar style didn't, eventually, cut it for me. He didn't get the tenderness; everything too critically sharp, mostly all over.
A similar regret is true of the only - and last - Brassaï tome I shall buy: he simply, to me, fills a slot in the overpopulated European canon of expats making a life in Paris. History gives him the slot, not the photographs; again, just my opinion. So, another lesson learned.
But, more seriously and to the point, Internet conversations have not made me change my mind about anything of importance that I can remember. I have of course, learned a lot about digital photography techniques from the web, but that's all; as for photography itself, you knew all you needed to know when you exposed the first few rolls. The rest was not photography, it was minor chemistry, exposure and darkroom techniques which a humble lab assistant could do without the least idea of how to work a complex camera or visualise an image. (The assistant could learn/do the strictly tech. bits in a laboratory fitted with a grey scale on the wall.) The photograph, the product made by the photographer in his darkroom from the negative, was, and still is the work of the photographer-cum-artist; if it isn't much, then that's what it is: nothing much; a bad day at the office.
;-)
-
Since we’ve already veered from the OP topic, and into the rich and their consumption, workers’ “energy,” etc.
Seems reasonable to me: he can only drive one car at a time, unless they make them driverless too. I suppose you could send a driverless car #2 off to buy a baguette whilst you are making hay with the companion of choice in car #1, a good reason for choosing slim companions if you use sports cars. Apart from that, improves the power-to-weight ratio if going anywhere special, and in a hurry.
The worker must feel really proud to have achieved such a wonderful result; might even get the chance to wash that car. He'll work much harder next year! Trust me on this.
Rob
-
Yes, it is sometimes false. When money is no longer represented by energy supplies, we have an economic collapse and the financial system has to be readjusted. Can you think of a single activity in a modern society that does not require energy? Can you think of a single use of money, that is, the practical application of money to purchase something, that does not involve energy?
Consider the most basic example of a person walking down the street. How does he get the energy to walk? From the food he eats, of course. In a modern society, food requires energy to produce; energy to build the tractors; energy to create the fertilizers; gasoline to fuel the farm machinery; trucks and fuel to transport the harvest to the market; electricity to run the refrigerators that store the food; and so on.
Of course, it's even more complex than that, because at each stage of the production and distribution of the food, there are workers involved who are paid money, or wages, and the energy supplies related to the expenditure of those wages are a part of the total amount of energy required to produce the food, which brings us to the following point.
You seem to have missed the point that the wages paid to the workers involved in any manufacturing process are a part of the total cost of production. A factory in China which uses the same machinery as an equivalent factory in the US, and has access to fuel and electricity at the same cost, can only produce the manufactured product more efficiently if its workers are more efficient.
There are two basic ways in which the Chinese worker can be more efficient. He can work more competently, make fewer errors, be quicker on his feet, and accomplish more; or he can do the same work with equal competence but with an expenditure of less energy, that is, he works for lower wages in real terms, taking the cost of living into consideration. Got it? ;)
No. I'm not by any means against innovation. I'm making a distinction between useful, or potentially useful products, and products which serve little purpose, except to flatter the vanity and ego of wealthy people who don't have the nous, the intelligence, the empathy and humanity, to use their resources more constructively for the betterment of mankind.
I recall around 20 years ago or more, the first digital cameras were ridiculously expensive, but it was clear they were a big step forward in at least 'potential' efficiency. The cumbersome and inefficient process of manufacturing and developing film had been removed.
My example of the ridiculously expensive watches that have got the deputy prime Minister of Thailand into trouble, is not an example of innovative technology. The reason such watches are so ridiculously expensive, is not because they allow the wearer to communicate with astronauts on the moon, for example, or have some other completely new and useful feature like the first digital cameras.
They are expensive for purposes of exclusivity. When a person wears a Richard Mille watch, assembled in a sapphire crystal case, for example, which costs more than most people spend on their homes (actual price $1,650,000), the wearer is simply sending a symbolic message to everyone who witnesses him wearing the expensive watch, that he is such a wealthy and successful and smart person that he belongs to an exclusive club and can afford to spend over a million dollars on a mere watch.
Such behaviour is disgraceful in my view.
Your original premiss was that money is only directly related to energy. This is simply not so. Like I stated before, money is the byproduct of interest gained on investments, which do not necessarily only involve energy. Every economist would agree with me on this.
Second, although energy may have a part with the value of money, it is not the sole factor in it's value. Such things as brand value (of countries), cost of living (which is not only related to energy), etc. also have an effect. The manipulation of currency is another factor that effects value.
Lets look at diamonds as an example. They are essentially worthless. Although it does require large amounts of energy to mine of diamond, then cut it and transport (actually since they are so small, the cost of transport if really zero), that value of the energy needed is still only a small amount of the final selling price. The reason we pay so much for diamonds is because DeBeers has convinced us they are worth a lot, even though there are more diamonds on the market right now then what we could use. So here, the money used to purchase these things are mainly a result of marketing.
Third, you say that whenever we veer from allowing money to only be directly related to energy, we have a recession, which implies that when we only allow money to be represented by energy we are fine. However, there have been panics in the past cause by a drastic change in the cost of energy.
Last, your comments on the watch and "useful" products also show a pretty juvenile understanding of innovation. Cross innovation happens all of the time, and often no one is able to predict where one innovation will come from and what other industry it will effect. By restricting investments in certain "non-useful" industries, you will be robbing future generations of innovations.
Perhaps the owner of that watch company is so driven by making the bast watch, a drive that would not be present in him in any other industry, he develops a much more accurate way to manufacture very tiny gears. This would be of use in many other industries as well. It may not be a digital innovation, like you seem to be only interested in, but even computers have moving parts controlled by tiny gears.
Who knows, and that's the point, no one really knows where an innovation will come from.
-
Your original premiss was that money is only directly related to energy. This is simply not so. Like I stated before, money is the byproduct of interest gained on investments, which do not necessarily only involve energy. Every economist would agree with me on this.
No. Not only related to energy. This is what I wrote in reply #308: "The fundamental basis of all wealth and prosperity is energy, in combination with the innovative and efficient uses of that energy."
I've already stated that when money is not associated with energy, and it's efficient use, we can have an economic collapse, although there is always some leeway. An economic collapse does not occur until there is a serious disassociation between energy, its efficient use, and money. Before that happens there are usually adjustments that take place such as a major devaluation of the currency and/or inflation, which might prevent the collapse.
The point I'm making is that the purpose of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and that all goods and services require energy for their production and existence.
Second, although energy may have a part with the value of money, it is not the sole factor in it's value. Such things as brand value (of countries), cost of living (which is not only related to energy), etc. also have an effect. The manipulation of currency is another factor that effects value.
Lets look at diamonds as an example. They are essentially worthless. Although it does require large amounts of energy to mine of diamond, then cut it and transport (actually since they are so small, the cost of transport if really zero), that value of the energy needed is still only a small amount of the final selling price. The reason we pay so much for diamonds is because DeBeers has convinced us they are worth a lot, even though there are more diamonds on the market right now then what we could use. So here, the money used to purchase these things are mainly a result of marketing.
No. You've misunderstood the situation. Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy, and the person or company that receives the money has the choice of using it in a productive way, which must involve the expenditure of energy. An unproductive use of money, which doesn't involve the use of energy, would be placing the money under your bed or in a safe. If everyone did that, the economy would collapse. But, as I've said, there is a certain degree of flexibility, so a few people sticking their saving under the bed, or in a safe, is not going to cause an economic collapse.
Third, you say that whenever we veer from allowing money to only be directly related to energy, we have a recession, which implies that when we only allow money to be represented by energy we are fine. However, there have been panics in the past cause by a drastic change in the cost of energy.
That reinforces my point. There is very good reason for a panic due to an increase in the cost of energy because energy is so essential for our existence in a modern society. Without energy supplies we'd all be back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Just a few years ago, there was a major concern about 'peak oil'. At the then present consumption, it became apparent that in a few decades there could become a world-wide shortage of gasoline, as reserves diminished, and as China and India began to dramatically increase the production of cars.
When energy becomes scarce, the price rises, and living standards fall, unless the energy can be used in a more efficient way to compensate for the smaller, available amount, which is always happening to some degree in the sense that light bulbs and car engines, and so on, have become more efficient over time.
However, the scare about peak oil has disappeared because of increased reserves of natural gas and the transfer of that scare to another scare about CO2 levels, which will drive the innovation towards capturing the almost unlimited energy from the sun.
Last, your comments on the watch and "useful" products also show a pretty juvenile understanding of innovation. Cross innovation happens all of the time, and often no one is able to predict where one innovation will come from and what other industry it will effect. By restricting investments in certain "non-useful" industries, you will be robbing future generations of innovations.
Again, you've misunderstood my point. I'm not against innovation at all, and I'm not advocating restriction. I began posting along these lines because I was in agreement with John Camp's view that successful entrepreneurs who have gained their wealth through clever, efficient, and innovative production of products and/or services, should not be able to pass on their entire wealth to their offspring without an inheritance tax, because their offspring are quite likely to waste such wealth by feeding their egos with expensive watches, and just splashing money on anything that takes their fancy just because they can.
I'm against the waste of resources. The expensive watches I've referred to are not innovative devices. They serve no more purpose, as a timepiece, than a watch costing 1,000th of the price. They are just food for the ego and a symbol of exclusivity.
Perhaps the owner of that watch company is so driven by making the bast watch, a drive that would not be present in him in any other industry, he develops a much more accurate way to manufacture very tiny gears. This would be of use in many other industries as well. It may not be a digital innovation, like you seem to be only interested in, but even computers have moving parts controlled by tiny gears.
Who knows, and that's the point, no one really knows where an innovation will come from.
You've missed the point again. I have no objection to someone manufacturing a very intricate, mechanical watch which is unique in design. What I object to the total foolishness of someone paying a thousand times the cost of the production of the watch, for the sake of creating a sense of exclusivity, and showing off to others that they are so wealthy they can spend as much on a watch as most people spend on their homes.
If the first digital cameras, which were not even as expensive as some of the Richard Mille watches, had remained expensive and exclusive, the degree of technical innovation, which has been amazing during the past 15 years or so, would never have occurred.
-
You've missed the point again. I have no objection to someone manufacturing a very intricate, mechanical watch which is unique in design. What I object to the total foolishness of someone paying a thousand times the cost of the production of the watch, for the sake of creating a sense of exclusivity, and showing off to others that they are so wealthy they can spend as much on a watch as most people spend on their homes.
What about purchasing a Picasso? Or a vintage Patek Philippe, or a classic Ferrari, not for creating exclusivity, for many of those items might not even be on display, but rather as as an investment?
I happen to agree with you and John Camp that an ever greater concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer people, generation to generation, is undesirable, but I'm having trouble squaring that with your objection to those ultra-wealthy individuals transferring some of that cash to manufacturers, laborers, merchants, auctioneers, car dealers, car salesman, etc. via extravagant purchases. Might that money be spent more to the benefit of society by creating a research grant, or endowing a scholarship, or buying an academic building with your name on it? Probably, but until we are living at subsistence level with nothing more than one heated room and rice for every meal, it seems that the definition of what's "appropriate" seems to flow to whatever the individual questioning the status quo seems to feel is appropriate.
-
Interesting article on innovation from Richard Mille.
Quartz, but not as we know it (http://en.worldtempus.com/article/watches/innovation-and-technology/richard-mille-rm27-02-quartz-but-not-as-we-know-it-19372.html)
As it turns out Richard Mille gives us innovation after innovation. Although only available to the rich currently, eventually the patents will run out and others, aka future generations, will be able to enjoy those innovations.
-
What about purchasing a Picasso? Or a vintage Patek Philippe, or a classic Ferrari, not for creating exclusivity, for many of those items might not even be on display, but rather as as an investment?
Good point. There are many works of art that are ridiculously expensive because of their rarity. There can be only one original of a painting. They are rare like polished diamonds or saphires. So, let's examine how this can work as an investment which could benefit the economy and mankind in general.
Let's say a person buys a work of art because he thinks it will rise in value dramatically over the years, or at least be a better investment than placing the money in a bank account.
He exchanges his savings for a painting that he hangs on the wall in his home. However, that is not equivalent to placing the savings in a safe deposit box or under the bed. The money he has paid for the painting, which represents energy, can be used by the recipient of that money for many sorts of useful purposes, or for completely useless purposes, and even negative and destructive purposes, such as wars, conflicts, or the manufacture of illegal drugs, and so on.
Likewise, when the owner of the painting eventually sells it, say, at a huge profit, he is effectively exchanging the painting for a responsibility in the form of money. He has to make a decision as to what to do with the money. He could build a new home, or start a new business, or simply transfer the money to a savings account in a bank, and let the bank make the decisions as to the use of the money. Or he could give the money to some charity organization and let them make the decisions as to its use.
The possession of money must always involve a certain degree of responsibility, regarding its use. A complete abrogation of that responsibility would be placing it under the bed, out of circulation.
If Richard Mille was the sort of person who used his great wealth productively, perhaps helping people in underdeveloped countries to improve their lifestyle, as Bill Gates does, then the purchase of his ridiculously expensive watches could be morally justified.
-
Interesting article on innovation from Richard Mille.
Quartz, but not as we know it (http://en.worldtempus.com/article/watches/innovation-and-technology/richard-mille-rm27-02-quartz-but-not-as-we-know-it-19372.html)
As it turns out Richard Mille gives us innovation after innovation. Although only available to the rich currently, eventually the patents will run out and others, aka future generations, will be able to enjoy those innovations.
Farcical! The 'North Thin Ply Technology' used in some of Richard Mille's watches was developed by another company. The use of that technology allows the watches to be lighter and stronger, which might be of some practical advantage for tennis players, but hardly for the public at large who use their smart phones to tell the time.
A more sensible use of the NTPT technology is as follows, for an improved space telescope.
https://www.compositesworld.com/news/ntpt-thin-ply-carbon-fiber-picked-for-space-telescope
You seem to be hoodwinked by marketing strategies, Joe. ;)
-
Let's say a person buys a work of art because he thinks it will rise in value dramatically over the years, or at least be a better investment than placing the money in a bank account.
He exchanges his savings for a painting that he hangs on the wall in his home. However, that is not equivalent to placing the savings in a safe deposit box or under the bed.
I think you watched Duck Tails too much as a kid and have this false belief that rich people hoard their money in a giant vault, occasionally taking a swim in it.
First, money in a savings account, or any bank account, does the economy much good. Where do you think banks get the money to make loans? Do you think it magically appears? No, it is from the money in the savings accounts they manage.
On top of that, those who are wealthy mainly put their money to work for them in many other area as well, making investments that help the overall economy. For the most part, an extremely small part of the wealthy's wealth is kept in the form of currency.
Sure, sometimes a company is taken over by a hedge fund and dismantled, but this is a rarity and typically only happens as a last resort. Often the company that was purchased has already been mismanaged so much by previous owners there is no alternative. These make great headlines, much like natural disasters, but we don't go around claiming the world is ending because of all of the disasters being reported.
Most of the time, companies are bought and allowed to continue to operate and grow.
Insofar as hoarding your money under the bed, the only people I have ever met who do this are idiots and poor because of their stupidity.
-
Farcical! The 'North Thin Ply Technology' used in some of Richard Mille's watches was developed by another company. The use of that technology allows the watches to be lighter and stronger, which might be of some practical advantage for tennis players, but hardly for the public at large who use their smart phones to tell the time.
A more sensible use of the NTPT technology is as follows, for an improved space telescope.
https://www.compositesworld.com/news/ntpt-thin-ply-carbon-fiber-picked-for-space-telescope
You seem to be hoodwinked by marketing strategies, Joe. ;)
Ahhh, no. Sure, maybe that technology was developed in another industry, but perhaps he came up with a better way to implement it.
However, I am not saying either, I was just supplying a legitimate rebuttal to your premiss that investment in "useless" industries have no good effects. The fact is that innovations comes from all over.
Whether or not Rich Mille actually made any worth wild innovations or not is besides the point. The point is he is trying to innovate and that perhaps he, or anyone else working in a "useless" industry, could invent something that can be applied in other industries and will change the world.
Like I said, cross innovation is common and it is not unusual for a mundane innovation in one industry being used in another that changes the world.
Your idea of who can invest where and limit how much they can invest would greatly decrease innovation.
-
I think you watched Duck Tails too much as a kid and have this false belief that rich people hoard their money in a giant vault, occasionally taking a swim in it.
Why do you keep misunderstanding my points? Where have I ever suggested in any of my posts that I think rich people hoard their money in a vault? I've simply used that as an extreme example of a completely unproductive use of money which is even worse than hoarding a luxury car in a garage, which is hardly ever used.
First, money in a savings account, or any bank account, does the economy much good.
Of course it does, generally. Where have I claimed it doesn't? Please re-read my posts. If there's something you don't understand, then mention it specifically, and I'll try to explain it more clearly.
To repeat, whoever is in possession of money has a responsibility to use it wisely, sensibly and productively, whether a bank, a large corporation, an average individual, or a multi-billionaire.
On top of that, those who are wealthy mainly put their money to work for them in many other area as well, making investments that help the overall economy.
Where in my posts have I criticized wealthy people who put their money to work in productive investments? I have no objection whatsoever to wealthy people who use their money productively for the benefit of mankind. It is the wastage of money on useless products which serve no purpose other than to feed an inflated ego, which I've been criticizing. Got it?
-
... whoever is in possession of money has a responsibility to use it wisely, sensibly and productively...
Really!? My money, and I will spend it as foolishly as I want.
-
I've simply used that as an extreme example...
And therein lies the problem. You typically use extreme examples in your arguments, which really makes them hyperbolic and ridiculous. If you can't make a point without pointing to the extreme or the exception all the time, then you can't make the point.
-
Really!? My money, and I will spend it as foolishly as I want.
Then you must, by your own admission, be a foolish person, Slobodan. ;D
By definition, a fool is a person who engages in foolish behaviour.
However, I would agree that everyone has the right, in a free democracy, to be a fool, provided such foolish behaviour does not harm others. Sadly, it often does, although sometimes very indirectly.
I suspect what you meant to say is that you will spend your money as you want regardless of someone else's opinion that such expenditure is foolish. However, that doesn't necessarily change the situation. A person who insists on doing something, despite the rationality and sense of other opinions that point out the foolishness of such behaviour, is still a fool. ;)
-
And therein lies the problem. You typically use extreme examples in your arguments, which really makes them hyperbolic and ridiculous. If you can't make a point without pointing to the extreme or the exception all the time, then you can't make the point.
It's not my problem. If I do use extreme examples, it's because the people who are responding to my arguments seem incapable of understanding the normal situation, in this case, that money represents 'energy and its uses'.
-
You write it, but it's not your fault? Are you possessed? You seem to do it anytime someone disagrees with you - it's the logical fallacy equivalent of shouting to try to win an argument.
-
You write it, but it's not your fault? Are you possessed? You seem to do it anytime someone disagrees with you - it's the logical fallacy equivalent of shouting to try to win an argument.
I don't give a stuff if someone disagrees with me. It's of no concern whatsoever. It's the soundness, rationality and factuality of the argument presented that is my only concern.
If anyone succeeds in debunking any of my arguments, or revealing flaws or inaccuracies, I'm overjoyed because I will have learned something. Got it?
-
I don't give a stuff if someone disagrees with me. It's of no concern whatsoever. It's the soundness, rationality and factuality of the argument presented that is my only concern.
If anyone succeeds in debunking any of my arguments, or revealing flaws or inaccuracies, I'm overjoyed because I will have learned something. Got it?
Yet this doesn't happen, as has been demonstrated numerous times when people post very reputable sources to back up their statements and you just dismiss them. Or you resort to extreme examples. I certainly haven't read every single one of your posts, but I don't recall you ever conceding anything regardless of the amount of facts and the quality of the sources. You deny them all.
-
Yet this doesn't happen, as has been demonstrated numerous times when people post very reputable sources to back up their statements and you just dismiss them. Or you resort to extreme examples. I certainly haven't read every single one of your posts, but I don't recall you ever conceding anything regardless of the amount of facts and the quality of the sources. You deny them all.
I'm concerned with demonstrable, objective facts, not the so-called 'quality' of the source, which can be very subjective, unless the source has factually and objectively been proven to be unreliable or fraudulent, of course.
-
I'm concerned with demonstrable, objective facts, not the so-called 'quality' of the source, which can be very subjective, unless the source has factually and objectively been proven to be unreliable or fraudulent, of course.
Peer reviewed with primary data - that's the gold standard. Yet I've frequently seen you question them with lines like "I don't think so" or "I don't agree" or by wheeling out an extreme case or minority view. So, sorry, the subjectivity going on is from you as cognitive bias.
-
Debating you, Ray, on money=energy!? Now, that would be foolish.
P.S. Oh, wait! Is that what “m” in E=mc2 stands for?
-
Debating you, Ray, on money=energy!? Now, that would be foolish.
P.S. Oh, wait! Is that what “m” in E=mc2 stands for?
Slobodan,
You do realize, don't you, that when I use the word money, in this context of its fundamental relationship with energy and the uses of that energy, I'm actually referring to the concept of the true value of money, in reality, not the inflated, or distorted, and/or manipulated value of money, which always occurs to some extent, everywhere, most of the time.
It's only when that distortion becomes extreme, that we have a economic collapse.
-
Define money, Ray. Properly, not in the vague terms you just did. Very exact definitions exist and are used constantly - pick one.
-
Define money, Ray. Properly, not in the vague terms you just did. Very exact definitions exist and are used constantly - pick one.
As I understand, there is no single precise definition of money or the money supply. However, a broad definition that makes sense to me, is that for something to qualify as money it must be something that is widely accepted as a medium of exchange for goods and services. A Van Gogh painting, a Richard Mille watch, or a printed photograph, do not qualify as money.
All goods and services, without exception, require an energy input, and that energy input is usually related to the price of the product or service, except when the product or service is used for 'exclusivity' purposes to feed an inflated ego. ;)
-
All goods and services, without exception, require an energy input, and that energy input is usually related to the price of the product or service, except when the product or service is used for 'exclusivity' purposes to feed an inflated ego. ;)
Energy is just one of the factors determining the price of a product. Other raw materials as well as the skills/time to make the product are a major factor as well.
And I also think you're confusing the price of a product at which it is sold vs. the cost to produce it.
-
Energy is just one of the factors determining the price of a product.
It is indeed, as I've already mentioned. The other factor is the degree of efficiency of the use of that energy. These two factors, which always work together, are the basis of all human activity.
Other raw materials as well as the skills/time to make the product are a major factor as well.
These other factors are not separate from energy requirements. 'No energy' equates to 'no raw materials'. One cannot dig up iron ore without an expenditure of energy. One cannot transport it to the smelting factory without an expenditure of energy, and that expenditure of energy is passed on to the buyer of the steel product, whatever the use it is put to.
Likewise with skills. Energy is required to build schools and fund teachers. Energy is required for the student to learn his skill, travel back and forth to the school or college, manufacture his computer, and provide food so he can survive.
And I also think you're confusing the price of a product at which it is sold vs. the cost to produce it.
No I'm not. The competitive free market encourages greater efficiency of the use of energy. China is an example of a country that has excelled in this respect. It seems to have combined the latest, most sophisticated technology, with wages that are lower than those that are typical in the West.
By paying lower wages, their products require less energy to produce. The next stage, which is already in place, is to develop sophisticated robots that can do most of the current jobs done by humans, at a lower cost, which equates to a lower consumption of energy, and a lower price in the market.
-
I'm concerned with demonstrable, objective facts
Why don't you bring some on your energy=price story? At this moment it's a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts.
-
Ray, it takes too much energy to debate you ;)
-
Why don't you bring some on your energy=price story? At this moment it's a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts.
Better still, why don't you give me just one example of a product or service, or any part of the often long and convoluted process of the production of the final product or service, that does not require an input of energy.
If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise. Are you asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ? ;D
-
Ray, it takes to much energy to debate you ;)
Try taking some PQQ ( PyrroloQuinoline Quinone), Slobodan. It's claimed to help the Mitochondria in our cells create energy more efficiently. ;D
"Mitochondria are often referred to as the powerhouse of the cell. They are small structures within a cell that are made up of two membranes and a matrix. The membrane is where the chemical reactions occur and the matrix is where the fluid is held. Mitochondria are a part of eukaryotic cells.
The main job of mitochondria is to perform cellular respiration. This means it takes in nutrients from the cell, breaks it down, and turns it into energy. This energy is then in turn used by the cell to carry out various functions."
-
As I understand, there is no single precise definition of money or the money supply. However, a broad definition that makes sense to me, is that for something to qualify as money it must be something that is widely accepted as a medium of exchange for goods and services. A Van Gogh painting, a Richard Mille watch, or a printed photograph, do not qualify as money.
All goods and services, without exception, require an energy input, and that energy input is usually related to the price of the product or service, except when the product or service is used for 'exclusivity' purposes to feed an inflated ego. ;)
Try again. There are numerous, well defined and accepted definitions. Choose one to work with instead of making things up.
-
If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise. Are you asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ? ;D
That's not what you said earlier, now you're changing the story.
You said:
Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy
So in your original words what you call "everything else" (bolded above for clarity) is also energy, which is exactly the part I say is "a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts"
So while I agree that 2 + 2 = 4 (no need to prove that to me) it has no relation to your original statement
-
That's not what you said earlier, now you're changing the story.
I'm not changing the story. I'm merely elaborating. It's not what I said earlier, word for word, although I sometimes do repeat things for the benefit of those who missed what I wrote earlier, perhaps because they didn't have the time to read the entire thread.
Also, I sometimes rephrase concepts and elaborate for the benefit of those with an apparent lack of comprehension skills. ;)
I don't see any contradiction in my following two statements.
(1) Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy.
(2) If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise.
So in your original words what you call "everything else" (bolded above for clarity) is also energy, which is exactly the part I say is "a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts"
Surely it's personal feelings that are in the category of 'smoke and mirrors'. If you think any part of my argument is 'smoke and mirrors', then please give me a specific example of such an issue which I might have failed to consider, and I'll examine it to see if it's relevant. Perhaps I'll learn something. ;)
To elaborate, if the price of energy (coal, oil, electricity, and so on) increases, then the production costs must also increase if everything else remains the same. By 'everything else' I mean everything else which is relevant to the production process, such as, the same machinery, the same processes, the same personnel who are paid the same wages, the same transport trucks, the same company profits, and so on.
In reality, of course, nothing remains the same. An increase in the price of fuel will often stimulate an increase in efficiency through a reorganization of the production processes, in order to keep the wholesale price of the final product the same, or even cheaper despite the increase in fuel costs.
Sometimes the Government might step in and subsidize the fuel costs for a particular industry in order to make the exports of the product competitive. In other words, the increase in fuel costs might be passed on to the general tax payer.
This is the basis of my argument, that the true and undistorted value of money must relate to the true cost of energy in combination with the efficiency of the uses of that energy.
If you think my argument is flawed, then by all means provide some specific examples which might appear to falsify my hypothesis, and I'll examine them impartially and rationally. ;)
-
Better still, why don't you give me just one example of a product or service, or any part of the often long and convoluted process of the production of the final product or service, that does not require an input of energy.
If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise. Are you asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ? ;D
One of the very first proofs I can remember seeing in college (I have degrees in pure mathematics) was that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and it was completely legitimate.
If you really want to start throwing around 2 + 2 = 4 and fool around with number theory to help justify your premise, I recommend you also specify the base and number system you are working in too.
;D
And to answer your question, I would love to see an original proof written by you that 2 + 2 = 4.
If possible, please write it in LaTex.
-
One of the very first proofs I can remember seeing in college (I have degrees in pure mathematics) was that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and it was completely legitimate.
If you really want to start throwing around 2 + 2 = 4 and fool around with number theory to help justify your premise, I recommend you also specify the base and number system you are working in too.
;D
And to answer your question, I would love to see an original proof written by you that 2 + 2 = 4.
It's you who is fooling around. If you have a legitimate proof that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, then explain the concept so we can all learn, and explain how it is relevant to the processes of money exchanged for goods and services, and the energy used in the production of the goods and services.
-
It's you who is fooling around. If you have a legitimate proof that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, then explain the concept so we can all learn, and explain how it is relevant to the processes of money exchanged for goods and services, and the energy used in the production of the goods and services.
Well if you worked in a base 3 number system, 4 is not even a numeral that exists, so in that instance 2 + 2 can not equal 4 due to the absence of a 4. Same thing with a base 4 system too, which only has numerals 0, 1, 2, and 3. (Base 2 would not make sense since the numeral 2 does not exists in a base 2 system.) You need to go up to a base 5 system for 2 + 2 = 4 to be correct.
Even so, this assumes you are working within a Abelian group such that the additive operation is what we would consider the normal addition every knows of and that the set associated with that group is at least the natural numbers.
So, as you can see it is not so simple to assume that 2 + 2 = 4.
Amazing what happens when you change the base axioms of any mathematical system, and also that so many people just assume that the math they are taught is absolutely true. It is not; it is only true if you choose to believe the base axioms, which is a choice not a requirement.
Anyway, you brought it up. You through around the idea that since 2 + 2 = 4 is so obvious, you can use it to back up you idea that money equals energy. But like I just showed, 2 + 2 = 4 is not always true, so it has no baring on your premise.
-
I don't see any contradiction in my following two statements.
(1) Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy.
(2) If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise.
I agree with your statement (2)
However the contradiction lies therein that if "the money you use to buy the product represents energy" (your exact words) there is no "everything else" in the price that remains the same, because everything is already represented by energy (according to your statement (1))
My statement is that there is an "everything else" part in the price which is not represented by energy (or the efficient use thereof), which you denied in your post # 348 in response to my statement.
So in order to get an objective/clear answer from you:
Is there a part of a product price which is not represented by energy or the efficient use thereof?
A: Yes
B: No
If you say answer A is correct we agree
If you say answer B is correct we disagreee
However if you say answer B is correct you have not given any objective and verifiable facts that support statement (1). It's your feeling or belief, but no more than that.
If you think my argument is flawed, then by all means provide some specific examples which might appear to falsify my hypothesis, and I'll examine them impartially and rationally. ;)
This is turning the word on its head, there's no obligation for me to find examples if you haven't even begun to give verifyable facts (supported by figures and calculations) that what you are saying makes any sense in the base case.
-
Well if you worked in a base 3 number system, 4 is not even a numeral that exists, so in that instance 2 + 2 can not equal 4 due to the absence of a 4. Same thing with a base 4 system too, which only has numerals 0, 1, 2, and 3. (Base 2 would not make sense since the numeral 2 does not exists in a base 2 system.) You need to go up to a base 5 system for 2 + 2 = 4 to be correct.
Wow! I think you deserve first prize for the most bleedingly obvious statement that has ever been made. 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in a numerical system in which the number 4 does not exist. Wow! Who would have thought that? ;D
I suppose in your next post you will try to debunk my argument regarding the connection between money and energy by stating that it is not true in circumstances where money does not exist.
Well done! Top marks! ;D
-
Is there a part of a product price which is not represented by energy or the efficient use thereof?
Of course there is. I've never claimed that the price of something represents energy. The price of something is just a notification on a billboard, or in an advertisement, or on a website, or on a tag in a shop.
It's the money paid for the product that represents energy. If an idiot spends a million dollars on a wrist watch, only a very small proportion of that money is needed to cover the production and marketing costs, and provide a reasonable profit. The vast majority of the money is effectively a donation towards a wealthy lifestyle of the owner of the business.
However, if the owner of the business, who receives a million dollars for a watch, uses the main portion of that money more sensibly than the person who bought the watch, then that's fine.
The purchaser of the watch feeds his ego, and the recipient of the money paid for the watch, which might be 100 times the production cost of the watch, feeds starving people in undeveloped countries, or restores degraded land through reforestation, or spends the money on some other useful project of benefit to mankind.
If that happens, I have no criticism. Got it?
-
Of course there is. I've never claimed that the price of something represents energy. The price of something is just a notification on a billboard, or in an advertisement, or on a website, or on a tag in a shop.
It's the money paid for the product that represents energy. If an idiot spends a million dollars on a wrist watch, only a very small proportion of that money is needed to cover the production and marketing costs, and provide a reasonable profit. The vast majority of the money is effectively a donation towards a wealthy lifestyle of the owner of the business.
However, if the owner of the business, who receives a million dollars for a watch, uses the main portion of that money more sensibly than the person who bought the watch, then that's fine.
The purchaser of the watch feeds his ego, and the recipient of the money paid for the watch, which might be 100 times the production cost of the watch, feeds starving people in undeveloped countries, or restores degraded land through reforestation, or spends the money on some other useful project of benefit to mankind.
If that happens, I have no criticism. Got it?
Read my post # 347, to which you disagreed on all points in your post 348
Now you're agreeing to everything I said there, i.e there are parts of the product cost unrelated to energy and you are swapping the definitions of the price paid by the consumer "the price" with the cost for the producer "the cost". What you call "price" is actually the cost for the producer.
-
Also, I sometimes rephrase concepts and elaborate for the benefit of those with an apparent lack of comprehension skills. ;)
...
(1) Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy.
I've never claimed that the price of something represents energy. The price of something is just a notification on a billboard, or in an advertisement, or on a website, or on a tag in a shop.
The problem is not the lack of comprehension skills of the readers here, maybe it's the lack of clear definition skills that's getting you.
In the first statement you say the money used to buy a product represents energy, in the second you refute your own statement.
Since you claim to be a master of impartial and rational reasoning I hope you now see that you better stick to one story and don't change it along the way, or in simple terms (might be easier to understand) "if you're in a hole, stop digging" ;)
-
Seems to me the OP theme has been exhausted already many pages ago. Since the last several pages have nothing to do with the OP and are, frankly, quite silly, I am closing the thread. Those who wish, can, of course, always open a new thread on energy and money.