If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The myth of America as the land of opportunity is busted by some Nobel winner   (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 368
    More: Sad, Nobel Laureates, Ayn Rand, equality of opportunity, environmental hazards, second inaugural address, Alan Krueger, achievement gap, Stiglitz  
•       •       •

8198 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2013 at 3:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



368 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 10:20:59 AM
there are plenty of places here in America where you can live and have your food and shelter and healthcare and everything you need taken care of.

life is simple in those places.

but on the other hand, you would be locked in, but hey...
 
2013-02-19 10:45:28 AM

colon_pow: there are plenty of places here in America where you can live and have your food and shelter and healthcare and everything you need taken care of.

life is simple in those places.

but on the other hand, you would be locked in, but hey...


Chicago?!

i kid i kid
 
2013-02-19 11:06:49 AM
KiltedBastich
govern ... without ... government.

I just want to make clear that this is what's going on in your brain. You have put an impossible task before me. "Paint this fence white, using only dark blue paint"

The powers that be throwing out democracy to institute some other system is not revolution in the sense we have been previously discussing, and revolution does not inherently mean warfare and violence, it can simply mean radical social change. In fact, pragmatically speaking, violent revolution is the worst option and the one most likely to not result in achieving the goals you are seeking to accomplish and most likely to cause collateral damage, because a violent revolution is also the kind that is the least predictable and most easily transformed into a random bloodbath. Again, the French Revolution is the most well known example, but look at what happened in the Iranian revolution, and various others around the world.

Okay, I'm clearly being trolled. What a bunch of gibberish. First you say revolution doesn't have to be violent, then you imply that violent revolution is the only kind.

which is the scope in which we are having this conversation

You: "Propose another system"
Me: "We have to think beyond representative democracy"
You: "We're only going to think within representative democracy"
 
2013-02-19 11:37:32 AM

Animatronik: Krugman and Stiglitz deserve awards for unswerving loyalty to the socialist and Keynesian paradigms, all logical arguments notwithstanding.


Since you've never given a logical argument ever it will be forever nonwithstanding.  Keep working on that GED.
 
2013-02-19 11:40:35 AM

RanDomino: I just want to make clear that this is what's going on in your brain. You have put an impossible task before me. "Paint this fence white, using only dark blue paint"


Ah good, you actually noticed the first part of the problem. So now you've given up on governing. How are you going to make your complex modern society function at all?

RanDomino: Okay, I'm clearly being trolled. What a bunch of gibberish. First you say revolution doesn't have to be violent, then you imply that violent revolution is the only kind.


No, you're just incompetent at logic and/or illiterate. Let me break it down for your obviously poor reasoning capacity.

There is more than one kind of revolution. Some are nonviolent, some are violent. The violent ones are much worse and even from a completely draconian perspective less effective in accomplishing your goals because it is almost impossible to control and direct them, and it does far more damage to your society.

Is that clear enough for you, or do I have to dumb it down to kindergarten level language?

RanDomino: You: "Propose another system"
Me: "We have to think beyond representative democracy"
You: "We're only going to think within representative democracy"



Now you're just being disingenuous. What actually happened was more like this:

Me: "Propose a mechanism other than representative government for enacting meaningful social change on a large scale"
You: <ideological small scale anecdotal suggestions that depend on the legal and ethical structures of a representative government and have no impact on the larger social issues>
Me: "What you propose is ideological, superficial, and completely dependent on the social and legal framework provided by representative government, and as a result will have no long term effects without political action. You fail. Try again"
You: <Pouting over his ideology being questioned>

You are not winning this argument by these straw men arguments you keep using. Clearly you do not wish to argue in good faith if it would mean that your ideology is challenged. How very predictable.
 
2013-02-19 12:09:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Sergeant Grumbles: iawai: Where the fark does that last sentence come from? I agree until he gets there.

What is your better solution?

I'm guessing it's that everyone who isn't rich can eat shiat, but the government should continue to provide police and road work and all of those other things rich people need, so they can have caviar instead.


My better solution is to abolish the subsidy network that props up politically connected "old money" industries, to distribute the regulatory structure to privately owned regulators who can better keep the big guys in check and not place undue burdens on small startup businesses, to stop pretending that the government has any interest in helping poor people, because poor people don't prop up their donations nor do they have a stake in the revolving door of big banks and big industry and the govt.

I agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not willing to point a gun at anybody to get them to play along with my schemes. That's exactly what Stiglitz is doing here by appealing to the govt for solutions. If you don't agree with the plan and resist? You get the business end of a gun.

If poor people were such bad investments, why has the micro-loan industry sprung up? The biggest thing keeping poor people from bettering their situation is govt regulation, economic intervention, and a system of criminal laws that is ravaging the poor for victimless crimes and creating violent criminal gangs that are funded by illicit traffiking.

/and no, the govt shouldn't be in roads, police, or "national" defense either. I'm not into violent socialism for anything.
 
2013-02-19 12:20:48 PM

iawai: I agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not willing to point a gun at anybody to get them to play along with my schemes. That's exactly what Stiglitz is doing here by appealing to the govt for solutions. If you don't agree with the plan and resist? You get the business end of a gun.


Oh, another "taxes are theft" guy.
 
2013-02-19 01:35:06 PM
The most I got out of this thread before I gave up reading is that it's important to tell your kid that they can build a better life for themselves.  But it is not important to help make that more possible.  SAYING it is good enough, but actually doing stuff?  That's work.  And work is hard.  So, what's the harm in telling your kid that she can be an astronaut while voting for guys to gut the space program?
 
2013-02-19 02:45:50 PM

Fart_Machine: iawai: I agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not willing to point a gun at anybody to get them to play along with my schemes. That's exactly what Stiglitz is doing here by appealing to the govt for solutions. If you don't agree with the plan and resist? You get the business end of a gun.

Oh, another "taxes are theft" guy.


and?

Name-calling is not an argument.
 
2013-02-19 06:08:28 PM

iawai: My better solution is to abolish the subsidy network that props up politically connected "old money" industries, to distribute the regulatory structure to privately owned regulators who can better keep the big guys in check and not place undue burdens on small startup businesses, to stop pretending that the government has any interest in helping poor people, because poor people don't prop up their donations nor do they have a stake in the revolving door of big banks and big industry and the govt.


I wouldn't call that a better solution. In fact, I'd say the complete opposite. That's a horribly stupid idea.
Privatizing the regulatory framework is probably the worst possible thing that could be done. Or did you believe the banks when they said they could police themselves?

How about I fix this for you....

iawai: to stop pretending that the government private industry has any interest in helping poor people

 As long as I have a vote, I trust the government more than I do private enterprise. A shareholder can be bought out while voting is a right.
 
2013-02-19 07:10:20 PM
KiltedBastich
Ah good, you actually noticed the first part of the problem. So now you've given up on governing. How are you going to make your complex modern society function at all?

Maybe the problem is that the word "government" is being thrown around when what's really meant is "State". If you want to call any large-scale organizational system a 'government' then we'd have to start talking about a 'Stateless government' which makes my brain hurt just typing it.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, so here's a straight answer.


Sergeant Grumbles
As long as I have a vote, I trust the government more than I do private enterprise. A shareholder can be bought out while voting is a right.

You have the right to a totally superficial vague preference. Congratulations.
 
2013-02-19 08:11:22 PM
Ghastly:
The revolution will never have the support of the population. Fascism 2.0 will have the benefit of history at its side. It'll realize the Iron Fist is nowhere near as effective at controlling the population as the fluffy pillow. People will be kept comfortable, productive, and saturated with opiates of all kinds. Fascism 2.0 will be sold under the banner of freedom. "Government" will be almost non existence replaced instead by a coalition of large multinational corporate monopolies.

Entertaining post, scary in it's resemblance to current days.  Only thing I think you are missing is that there will still be a stratified society and capitalism can't contain it's self.  It will (by it's very nature) push more and more of the populace towards the bottom, after their fleecing. Just like the Enron folks ruined deregulation plans for the nation by raping California.

This will always be their undoing, Capitalism/Corporatism will always sell you the rope that you use to hang them.
 
2013-02-19 10:45:04 PM

RanDomino: Maybe the problem is that the word "government" is being thrown around when what's really meant is "State". If you want to call any large-scale organizational system a 'government' then we'd have to start talking about a 'Stateless government' which makes my brain hurt just typing it.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, so here's a straight answer.


No, I mean government. A state is the boundaries you draw on the map. A municipality has a government, a state has a government, a nation has a government. In fact, if you get into some fairly abstract social theory. Any time you have a body given the mandate to enact law for the society it represents, you have a government. Corporations can be that government, you know, oligarchy is an old concept in political science.

And anarcho-syndicalism is also simply an alternate form of government, and one that has the rather enormous Achilles' heel of requiring informed ethical behaviour of all participants. The very idealism and decentralization it espouses makes it very vulnerable to anyone who wishes to selfishly exploit or overthrow the system, and it makes almost no provisions at all for the kind of personal charisma that can let one person convince others to follow him or her and follow their lead in commiting said exploitation. Humans engage in tribal behaviours instinctively. It takes almost nothing at all to trigger "us vs. them" thinking and behaviour patterns, and it is the easiest thing in the world for someone with a modicum of personal charisma and native intelligence to exploit to their own benefit.

Ultimately, it makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that humans, once they understand the system, will want to participate honestly and ethically rather than exploit the system. It also presumes a level of general education in, understanding of and acceptance of these very specific ideological concepts that is essentially impossible to achieve in a pluralistic society that values personal freedom and different perspectives.  All in all, that's incredibly foolish, as anyone who has ever studied social psychology can tell you. People are short-sighted and self-interested. Even when they know better they will often take the easy and selfish route, especially if no one they know directly is going to be affected. You will always have people who will try to game the system. You will always have people willing to organize themselves into groups, be they tribes, guilds, nations or corporations, in order to seek advantage. If you want to change this, then you will have to literally change the underlying nature of human beings.

(Seriously, I already told you I have a degree in sociology. Did you think I would be unfamiliar with anarcho-sydicalism? It's a little obscure, but it has direct roots in Marxist theory, and Karl Marx is one of the three big names in sociology along with Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Most any sociologist worth the name will at least be familiar with the basics.)

This is just another example of why I hold a very poor opinion of most ideologies. They lead people to attempt to make the world conform to how they think it should be, to their ultimate detriment and usually the detriment of those around them, rather than learning to accept the world on its own terms as honestly as they can.

If you do not understand, the universe is as it is. If you do understand, the universe is as it is. - Zen koan
 
2013-02-20 01:53:08 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: I wouldn't call that a better solution. In fact, I'd say the complete opposite. That's a horribly stupid idea.
Privatizing the regulatory framework is probably the worst possible thing that could be done. Or did you believe the banks when they said they could police themselves?


Hmm....
3.bp.blogspot.com
I don't trust the banks to regulate themselves, that's why (1) I don't want the govt regulating them, (2) I don't want a fiat currency, (3) I don't want to pay taxes to an institution that bails them out, and (4) I would rather trust a private regulator who could be judged by independent courts to be at an arms-length from the regulated entities.

Sergeant Grumbles: As long as I have a vote, I trust the government more than I do private enterprise. A shareholder can be bought out while voting is a right.


Your vote doesn't matter. And even so, why does 51% get to tell 49% how to run their lives?

You don't have a "right" to vote, anyway - you have been granted the privilege to throw your ballot into the ocean of ballots filled out by the rest of the voters.

I'd rather rely on my private property rights as a shareholder, and be free to sell my share if I don't like how the regulator I've invested in has been doing their job.
 
2013-02-20 10:45:58 AM

iawai: I don't trust the banks to regulate themselves, that's why (1) I don't want the govt regulating them, (2) I don't want a fiat currency, (3) I don't want to pay taxes to an institution that bails them out, and (4) I would rather trust a private regulator who could be judged by independent courts to be at an arms-length from the regulated entities.


You don't want to live in reality. Could have just said that.
 
2013-02-20 01:22:19 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: iawai: I don't trust the banks to regulate themselves, that's why (1) I don't want the govt regulating them, (2) I don't want a fiat currency, (3) I don't want to pay taxes to an institution that bails them out, and (4) I would rather trust a private regulator who could be judged by independent courts to be at an arms-length from the regulated entities.

You don't want to live in reality. Could have just said that.


And you don't want to accept that you live in a reality that sucks. Could have just said that.
 
2013-02-20 01:43:54 PM

iawai: And you don't want to accept that you live in a reality that sucks. Could have just said that.


I accept reality sucks. I also know your fantasy isn't any kind of solution to making it suck any less.

Making money king is half of the problem with the U.S. today. Going all the way is only going to invite more corruption.
How is a private regulator, presumably beholden to its own shareholders, supposed to make objective decisions on the industries it regulates? I think it can only end one way, the Food and Drug Administraction (a subsidiary of Brawndo, Inc.).
 
2013-02-21 11:49:36 AM
KiltedBastich
Did you think I would be unfamiliar with anarcho-sydicalism? It's a little obscure, but it has direct roots in Marxist theory

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
 
Displayed 18 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report