Economics/Moralities

[guido911]

You, sir, are the naturally-occurring proof of Krugman's theorem.  Congrats! 

 

Why? Because I find it damned insulting when someone suggests that my success, and even more so my wife's success given she sacrificed even more, was a result of being fortunate. Folks like you who are apparently content with doing the very least to get by and letting those that really did achieve cover everything are not "less fortunate". They are, in the words of Boortz, part of the "moocher class".

As for Krugman, I'll let democrat pollster Pat Caddell provide my thoughts on this scumbag opportunist.

[we vs us]

Why? Because I find it damned insulting when someone suggests that my success, and even more so my wife's success given she sacrificed even more, was a result of being fortunate. Folks like you who are apparently content with doing the very least to get by and letting those that really did achieve cover everything are not "less fortunate". They are, in the words of Boortz, part of the "moocher class".

As for Krugman, I'll let democrat pollster Pat Caddell provide my thoughts on this scumbag opportunist.

Did you even read the article?  Do you have any idea what you're arguing about?

[guido911]

Did you even read the article?  Do you have any idea what you're arguing about?

Yes I did read it. Have you. Here's his screed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

Now you tell me, how else should I respond to a hacky and snobbish commentary tying economic policy disputes to violence. Of course, it's only the GOP's position that leads to violence or threats. After all, it was members of the GOP and tea party types that were violently protesting the G20. Just look at these repubs:



Also, I find it extremely condescending to be lectured by Krugman that my desire to retain as much as I can of what I earn is somehow immoral. Conan's right. It's not that I don't want to pay my fair share. Believe me, right now this "society winner" (what a bullsh!t description of those that achieve) pays what I consider more than my fair share despite the thousands I give to those "less fortunate" or "society losers".  How about you?

[nathanm]

Why? Because I find it damned insulting when someone suggests that my success

Why would you find it insulting to acknowledge that your success is, in some small part, due to luck and the society that provides a framework for you to make money?

[guido911]

Why would you find it insulting to acknowledge that your success is, in some small part, due to luck and the society that provides a framework for you to make money?

First, our society provides everybody a "framework" to succeed, not just me. The fact that I took advantage of this framework and the "less fortunate" or "society losers" did not should not be grounds to insult me by calling me as "society winner" or "fortunate" or "lucky".

As for my success being tied to "luck", please elaborate. Because if you read what I posted as to how I got to where I am, I fail to see anything "lucky" about it. Well, I take that back. I guess while I commuted between Joplin and Tulsa (4 hours a day on the road) for those four years I was lucky a semi driver cranked out did run me over. And by the way, I was so lucky to lose all that time from my wife and kids that I will never get back while I made that drive so I could provide for my family.

[nathanm]

You were lucky to be born here, that was the first bit. If you weren't born here, you were lucky to be born to parents who had the foresight to bring you here. If you weren't brought here as a child, you were lucky to win the immigration lottery.

So yeah, from your first breath you have been one of the lucky and privileged few, just as each and every one of us who lives in the US is.

You seem to think that being lucky means you can sit back and do nothing and let the dough roll in. I have never said that. I have never belittled your hard work and sacrifice. You seem to think that luck is like a lazy Christian's conception of prayer. It's not winning the lottery, it's finding yourself in a situation where hard work and sacrifice will actually get you somewhere. For some people, that's just not the case.

Again, I don't see the insult. Maybe you can explain it to me more slowly and in smaller words.

[eDuece]

  Time out for  great quote from Winston Churchill that might have some relevance here. " The curse of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of the wealth, the blessings of Socialism are the equal sharing of the misery." Kind of sums it up.

[we vs us]

If you'd read the article you'd see that the point isn't another "my ideology trumps yours."  He's saying that the way you conceive of economic justice and the way I conceive of economic justice are now entirely opposed, and that there is effectively no place for us to compromise.  You think my idea of the government is essentially stealing your money and giving it to people who don't deserve it.  Which is immoral.  I think your idea of hard work vs luck is straight out of the Gilded Age and ignores nearly a century of hard-learned lessons about how economics works.  Which is immoral. 

THAT'S the point.  Not that you're wrong and I'm right, but that we've come to a point where the two poles of our country don't have any common ground for governance.

[waterboy]

I remember reading somewhere that birds actually don't see or hear many other species. They operate at different wave lengths of sound and at different speeds of vision. They can't communicate with many other types of birds because they simply cannot hear them. It is assumed that it keeps them from cross breeding. They don't really see humans or hear us because we are so slow moving in comparison. They fly away because they sense some movement but we must look like some sort of ghost to them.

Maybe we're not so different. However, birds aren't so egotistical as to believe that the wavelength they operate in is superior to that of other birds.

[we vs us]

I remember reading somewhere that birds actually don't see or hear many other species. They operate at different wave lengths of sound and at different speeds of vision. They can't communicate with many other types of birds because they simply cannot hear them. It is assumed that it keeps them from cross breeding. They don't really see humans or hear us because we are so slow moving in comparison. They fly away because they sense some movement but we must look like some sort of ghost to them.

Maybe we're not so different. However, birds aren't so egotistical as to believe that the wavelength they operate in is superior to that of other birds.

You know, his secondary point (as I took it) was also important . . . that for decades, Democrats and Republicans both had decided at core that a mixed economy with a strong safety net was an unalloyed good thing.  There were definite disagreements over how much to spend, where to put it, etc, but there was a consensus that social welfare was a crucial element of a modern state. 

The Tea Partiers and the newer Republicans (like Gaspar and Guido) question the validity of the welfare state altogether and that's both new and kind of hobbles our political discussions. 

[Red Arrow]

However, birds aren't so egotistical as to believe that the wavelength they operate in is superior to that of other birds.

How do you know that?

Dr. Doolittle syndrome?

[waterboy]

Because they aren't aware of the other birds and they have tiny little brains that don't have room for ego!

Perhaps the Great Horned Owl looks with disdain upon the other little creatures around him but likely he just looks at them as food.

[waterboy]

You know, his secondary point (as I took it) was also important . . . that for decades, Democrats and Republicans both had decided at core that a mixed economy with a strong safety net was an unalloyed good thing.  There were definite disagreements over how much to spend, where to put it, etc, but there was a consensus that social welfare was a crucial element of a modern state. 

The Tea Partiers and the newer Republicans (like Gaspar and Guido) question the validity of the welfare state altogether and that's both new and kind of hobbles our political discussions. 

No amount of leadership alone bridges that chasm. I'm afraid it is the economic realities that force changes in the view points. For instance, the industrialization of the mid to late 1800's produced the gilded age and the perceptions of reality that Guido and Gas revere. There was no difference between the goals of government and the goals of business as they were one and the same. There was no "hand up" offered to the widows, children and immigrants living on the street by government as they were considered to be products of their own lack of ambition or lack of willpower. Immigrants basically replaced the low cost labor lost after the Civil War. Bluntly, there was no profit in a welfare oriented viewpoint.

The consensus up to now was forged in the aftermath of a globally disastrous WWI, a charismatic President (TR, who changed the view of what government could do), the failure of banking and another charismatic President (FDR). The populace had a taste of widespread prosperity from the 20's and no longer would tolerate watching the elderly, infirm and lower classes be abused for profit. We adjusted capitalism to new realities.

Seems odd to me that as we repeat the cycle with the advent of a new digital revolution, that has led to the same circumstances as the mid to late 19th century, anyone would expect different results in the political arena. It is uncanny how the immigration issues, corporate domination of government, ecological issues and a (economic) digital revolution have all lined up exactly as before. This alignment of elements actually led to changes in government systems and economic systems globally at that time in Europe and Asia.

But we're smarter now. Aren't we? We'll make adjustments to these disparate views or we'll not prosper. Which will lead to a failure to effectively react to crises. And that will change the chasm into a consensus.

[Red Arrow]

I remember reading somewhere that birds actually don't see or hear many other species. They operate at different wave lengths of sound and at different speeds of vision. They can't communicate with many other types of birds because they simply cannot hear them. It is assumed that it keeps them from cross breeding. They don't really see humans or hear us because we are so slow moving in comparison. They fly away because they sense some movement but we must look like some sort of ghost to them.

I checked out bird vision and believe you have a misunderstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

[waterboy]

I was a bit off with the vision as far as motion, (I don't regularly check Wiki, instead relying on a more sophisticated but perhaps less reliable search engine, my cerebrum) but this site said nothing about their auditory abilities-

"Birds can resolve rapid movements better than humans, for whom flickering at a rate greater than 50 Hz appears as continuous movement. Humans cannot therefore distinguish individual flashes of a fluorescent light bulb oscillating at 60Hz, but Budgerigars and chickens have flicker thresholds of more than 100 Hz. A Cooper's Hawk can pursue agile prey through woodland and avoid branches and other objects at high speed; to humans such a chase would appear as a blur.[5]
Birds can also detect slow moving objects. The movement of the sun and the constellations across the sky is imperceptible to humans, but detected by birds. The ability to detect these movements allows migrating birds to properly orient themselves"

Nonetheless, I remain confidant that most birds may perceive of the slower motion of a human but have no idea what that motion represents other than possible food, mating or danger. They also have little ability to communicate outside of their own type which is the basis of my analogy. IIRC, they cannot distinguish the meaning of another type of birds' call or sometimes even hear it at all.

Which was an analogy meant to highlight the main feature of the discussion. Danged engineer.