tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7730120468280564818..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Does Gordon Gekko understand, or misunderstand, capitalism in this famous movie speech?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13191742166545196702011-09-06T06:53:02.359-07:002011-09-06T06:53:02.359-07:00Anonymous said...
One Brow: "Explain why, wit...<i> Anonymous said...<br />One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely"." <br /><br />My point is that the solution doesn't lie in its bigness, its centralization, or its bureaucracy.</i><br /><br />I can agree with that. Bigness, centralizaiton, and bureaucracy can only help implement solutions, or parts of solutions, that are universal in nature. Regarding the parts of the solutions that are more varied, they will not help at all.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36658809582222801312011-09-03T20:15:15.683-07:002011-09-03T20:15:15.683-07:00One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regar...One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely"." <br /><br />My point is that the solution doesn't lie in its bigness, its centralization, or its bureaucracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23248520793242101122011-09-02T03:56:14.198-07:002011-09-02T03:56:14.198-07:00Just one more socialist shill: "I'll free...<b>Just one more socialist shill:</b> "<i>I'll freely admit I am not worrying about textbook definitions here. For the sake of clarity, in whatever further posting I may make to this thread, I define capitalism as "the system we are currently living under in America".</i>"<br /><br />Translation: I'm going to pretend that the socialism in which the US has been increasingly mired for the past century is "capitalism"; and then, pointing out that it's not working very well, I'm going to call for a doubling-down on socialism.<br /><br />You people never change.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74964027370350382542011-09-01T16:59:29.344-07:002011-09-01T16:59:29.344-07:00Anonymous,
You've already noted this, but fun...Anonymous,<br /><br />You've already noted this, but funding for NASA is a pittance in comparison with healthcare costs. The key point, I think, is that healthcare would be less expensive in a universal system. The burden on businesses would also be much reduced, so other economic benefits should result.<br /><br />On NASA funding, it functions - like much of military funding - as a subsidy for technology. I'm fine with subsidizing technological development (virtually all modern electronics arose out of subsidized program, the exceptions being research conduct at Bell Labs and other state-protected monopolies), if only we would separate it from military uses and the unending stream of noise about `security'.<br /><br />Conservatives are right to note that taxation is inherently coercive. What they usually miss, I think, is that the alternative - for virtually all of the past and the foreseeable future - has effects which are far more coercive. And this is before we even begin to discuss what would be lost, or the effects of gross inequality. For being in a country dangerously close to being a banana republic, the obsession of conservatives with taxation is disconcerting.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91969443860008207772011-09-01T16:04:37.063-07:002011-09-01T16:04:37.063-07:00Nothing is wrong with NASA in the abstract, but I&...Nothing is wrong with NASA in the abstract, but I'd prefer that money went towards things like a universal healthcare program. And yes, yes, I know NASA doesn't cost much in the grand scheme of things. I'm not a Conservative; I'm not actually suggesting that in a democracy, I shouldn't have to pay for things that a majority of my fellow citizens approve of that I do not.<br /><br />I'm simply making the point that the role of government is an ongoing negotiation. Inevtiably, in a diverse democracy, some of my tax dollars will go to programs I don't approve of. Portraying the situation in such ridiculously dramatic terms as Illion does just obscure the issue. If any of Illion's colorful descriptions were accurate, then the only morally tolerable state would be a state without any taxation at all, which is to say, no state at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59630512265318180412011-09-01T15:45:53.044-07:002011-09-01T15:45:53.044-07:00Anon,
What's wrong with NASA?Anon,<br /><br />What's wrong with NASA?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58868618727421642142011-09-01T15:42:13.059-07:002011-09-01T15:42:13.059-07:00Illion,
It seems to me that your argument is just...Illion,<br /><br />It seems to me that your argument is just against taxation in general. As a liberal I have to pay for many programs I do not like. Do you think it's immoral for the government to take money from me to pay for NASA, or farming subsidies, or a bloated military industrial complex, or a corrupt penal industrial complex, etc?<br /><br />I guess my question is, why would a Christian prefer his tax dollars go towards the military rather than, for example, universal healthcare?<br /><br />Certainly, no particular way of governing is mandated in detail in the Bible, but it seems to me that support for universal healthcare is more Christian than support for a large military.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13178657128194656302011-09-01T15:37:34.806-07:002011-09-01T15:37:34.806-07:00Crude,
We're getting nowhere. You're just...Crude,<br /><br />We're getting nowhere. You're just repeating what I say in an insulting tone. It's possible I'm misunderstanding you. Let me ask you a straightforward question to see if I understand your position correctly.<br /><br />Which state of affairs is preferable:<br /><br />A) Every person in the United States has access to high quality healthcare, and every person in the United States develops a sense of entitlement towards that healthcare<br /><br />or <br /><br />B) Large numbers of people in the United States do not have access to adequate healthcare, but no one in the United states feels entitled to healthcare<br /><br />If it is the case that we can't help very large numbers of people without them feeling entitled to that help, should we err on the side of helping more people or on the side of preventing people from feeling entitled?<br /><br />And if you could answer without insulting me, that would be a nice change of pace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20173063285254663542011-09-01T11:48:32.954-07:002011-09-01T11:48:32.954-07:00On education, discrepancies in performance are ver...On education, discrepancies in performance are very often due to discrepancy in parental emphasis on education. Usually, there is no magic `religious schools are better' or `private schools are better' formula. I think it more important to emphasize parental participation in education. <br /><br />Education should be a community activity, not merely a state activity. How exactly this is to be accomplished will obviously vary at the local level, hence the importance of local control. One idea I've had is to organize - perhaps even pay or otherwise incentivize - extra-curricular sessions targeted at children and adults. They may be for advanced students and well-educated adults, or catch-up courses for more forgetful parents and struggling students.<br /><br />If options are made available, this could lower student/faculty ratios in classes. Further, university students could participate. For another example, scholarships and grants could be given to undergraduates/graduates who participate in extra-curricular teaching.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42276914478399257702011-09-01T10:06:11.888-07:002011-09-01T10:06:11.888-07:00Anonymous said...
Depends. If kids who are poor or...Anonymous said...<br /><i>Depends. If kids who are poor or can't speak English are getting kicked out, that wouldn't be good... but those groups actually benefit. </i><br /><br />Only if the school is willing to invest the extra money required to teach poor/ESL kids. Even when they are not profit-motivated, private schools have to balance the books. There will be more poor/ESL kids rejected for that reason alone.<br /><br /><i>What if the children not being selected are the jerks and bullies who would only drag down the other students? </i><br /><br />Are there any current private schools that perform this sort of exclusion? Schools can predict this behavior before admission? Bullies and jerks don't seserve a chance to educate themselves to be better people? I just don't see this point as being relevant; the possibility seems too remote.<br /><br /><i>If the school does better because its students are doing better, that's good for those students. </i><br /><br />Yet, it's liberals who get accused of being elitest.<br /><br /><i>Obviously the reality is more complex than that, but whatever the details, the solution is unlikely to be a big centralized bureaucracy.</i><br /><br />Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely".<br /><br />For me, the real solution is in elevating the importance of a strong education for every child.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1245652629266336782011-09-01T09:30:46.255-07:002011-09-01T09:30:46.255-07:00One Brow: "It's great for the school. How...One Brow: "It's great for the school. How about for the children not selected?"<br /><br />Depends. If kids who are poor or can't speak English are getting kicked out, that wouldn't be good... but those groups actually benefit. What if the children not being selected are the jerks and bullies who would only drag down the other students? If the school does better because its students are doing better, that's good for those students. Obviously the reality is more complex than that, but whatever the details, the solution is unlikely to be a big centralized bureaucracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78182221452586189712011-09-01T06:31:19.977-07:002011-09-01T06:31:19.977-07:00And yes, before you get around to saying it, I do ...And yes, before you get around to saying it, I do hate freedom, and I want the terrorists to win!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7107914878581221652011-09-01T06:29:39.720-07:002011-09-01T06:29:39.720-07:00Crude,
I can't say that I "detest" ...Crude,<br /><br />I can't say that I "detest" your politics, since I haven't been able to figure out what they are.<br /><br />I, however, make no pretense about my being anything other than a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, snail darter saving, illegal immigrant coddling, feminist, multicultural, brie and Chablis swilling, tax and spend, proud blue state liberal!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61741238868081597822011-08-31T17:49:56.575-07:002011-08-31T17:49:56.575-07:00Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitl...<i>Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitlement is real, and that feeling entitled is immoral. I just don't think it ranks on the list of ills that merit changes in public policy.</i><br /><br />"Feeling entitled is immoral" according to you? Huh.<br /><br />And you don't think the secondary affects to behavior, attitude and thought matter when considering policies? Sure, man. Even if you don't, hooray for disagreements.<br /><br /><i>Whether you want to call it an emotion or a disposition, I don't see how the presence or absence of feelings of entitlement in others should be of any concern to the government whatsoever. </i><br /><br />Concern of the government? How about concern of the people, regardless of the damn government?<br /><br />Either way - of course you don't. Because you're apparently pretty damn naive and have trouble thinking things through. What you're basically saying here is that 'affects on attitude and behavior is not a concern which should factor into policy considerations'. Okay, you run with that.<br /><br /><i>Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.</i><br /><br />And the Lord said, "Give them food and clothing. Then, you know. Fuck the lot of 'em. Your duty's done. Concern about their behavior, about their attitudes, about their thought? Please. Just vote Obama in 2012. See you on Democratic Underground."<br /><br />Somewhere in Corinthians I'm sure.<br /><br />Yeah, your understanding of morality, particularly Christian morality, doesn't impress me. Reading comprehension issues. Shocking, it's as if we're discovering a pattern here.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39779375753206780592011-08-31T17:30:56.376-07:002011-08-31T17:30:56.376-07:00"Is it your contention that nowhere in the Bi..."<i>Is it your contention that nowhere in the Bible does ...</i>"<br /><br />It is, as I have already made clear, my contention that you are intellectually dishonest. ANd I don't allow fools to dictate the use of my time.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6864662949778637502011-08-31T17:29:01.275-07:002011-08-31T17:29:01.275-07:00Anonymouse: "... Because Jesus commanded me t...<b>Anonymouse:</b> "<i>... Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.</i>"<br /><br />Jesus didn't command anyone to lobby Caesar and the Senate to send the Legions around to "collect", under threat of violent death (no scare-quotes needed on that part), "donations" for "the poor" to be "distributed" by "caring professionals" (who must, of course, be compensated for their time and effort; and handsomely so, lest they, too, be "poor") ... which is, after all, what this Anonymouse is really advocating.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50315523240819514842011-08-31T17:24:02.356-07:002011-08-31T17:24:02.356-07:00Illion:
Is it your contention that nowhere in the...Illion:<br /><br />Is it your contention that nowhere in the Bible does God demand that private money and property be transferred to the poor, and promise suffering and death if this demand is disobeyed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26986317871680532322011-08-31T17:18:00.361-07:002011-08-31T17:18:00.361-07:00Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitl...Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitlement is real, and that feeling entitled is immoral. I just don't think it ranks on the list of ills that merit changes in public policy. I don't think it's a significant reason to make government programs more local, or to make any changes in policy at all. Whether you want to call it an emotion or a disposition, I don't see how the presence or absence of feelings of entitlement in others should be of any concern to the government whatsoever. If any particular national program, because of its superior reach and resources, helps more people than would be helped if the program went local, I think we have a very clear moral responsibility to keep the program national. Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4009919539022543402011-08-31T16:24:53.278-07:002011-08-31T16:24:53.278-07:00But what is it that you perceive in others that al...<i>But what is it that you perceive in others that allows you to tell if they are feeling "entitled?"</i><br /><br />The utter lack of appreciation for what they receive, the absence of a sense of debt to anyone, the reduction or absence of a desire - even if possible - to get beyond and therefore give up the assistance, and more.<br /><br /><i>you know enough such people to form accurate generalizations on what the effect of their receiving aid is.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. Some of these people are good friends and family. People I care about and know well.<br /><br /><i>Generalizing from personal experience seems a very shaky basis for the widespread program changes you suggest.</i><br /><br />What "widespread program changes", pal? I haven't suggested any - I've spoken extremely broadly, and suggested attitudes and ideas more than "program changes". Fighting some phantoms, I see.<br /><br />No, I'm reasoning just fine. You, meanwhile, seem to be outraged at the very thought that some people may feel 'entitled' and that this may be a bad thing that we should pay attention to, even work against.<br /><br /><i>And I asked about this moral duty you feel to prevent feelings of entitlement precisely because it is not commonly listed among the moral duties.</i><br /><br />I really don't care about what is "commonly listed" or not. Oh golly, am I deviating from the norm? No, it can't be! Nooooooo!<br /><br /><i>Much less that it is such a severe moral duty that we should eliminate government programs that help people in pursuit of it. And why is "entitlement" the only negative emotion that demands that sort of action? What about jealousy? If we're using government policy to prevent negative emotions, shouldn't we eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich because they make the middle-class feel jealous?</i><br /><br />Again, 'eliminate government programs'? I haven't outlined any specific policy ideas here, much less called for the utter elimination of welfare, etc. Goddamn people with reading comprehension problems in this thread, fighting arguments they've had with other people and are projecting onto me.<br /><br />Frankly, I think the very idea of trying to find government solutions to these problems is part of the sickness itself. Hence my emphasis on personal action, and making the focus as local as possible. But that's a tough concept for you, apparently, so you know - keep shadow boxing.<br /><br />Further, 'entitlement' isn't a mere emotion like happy or sad - it's an attitude, it involves beliefs and approaches. So, swing and a miss there on your part. But okay, let's play your Cute Logic 101 game: Apparently the SCOTUS ruled the wrong way in Brown v Board of Education, because the argument fundamentally turned on the personal feelings of the students.<br /><br />So, since we're at the Stupid Human Tricks point in this conversation already, I'm just going to take on the full comedy option here and denounce your racism.<br /><br /><i>I think you feel they should suffer because obviously government sponsored programs reach more people than local charities, and you advocate eliminating government programs in favor of local charities.</i><br /><br />More lack of reading comprehension. Where did I say I "advocate eliminating government programs" in this way? Ask Bob Prokop (who probably detests my politics), Ilion, and most others here: I have in the past entirely supported some amount of welfare for people, even some medical care, though I disagree with all of them about the amounts. I think it should be limited. I even said, quote: <i>Second, if government assistance really is a necessity, try to make it as local as possible.</i> There's a reason for that: Because I don't utterly discount the idea of some government assistance in principle or practice.<br /><br />Let me guess why you're coming at me as an anon: Your foot ends up in your mouth pretty often when you're not in friendly company, so better to screw up as an anon rather than connected to your typical nick, eh? ;)Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90374201638546757692011-08-31T11:18:29.669-07:002011-08-31T11:18:29.669-07:00Ilíon said...
Translation: If everyone can't g...Ilíon said...<br /><i>Translation: If everyone can't get a "perfect" education (whatever that means), then it is "unjust" that one may get a better one. </i><br /><br />I don't recall saying anything about justice. I'm just pointing out that when you allow the private/charter schools ot take the best, least expensive students, it will still fall upon the open-enrollment public schools to take the students that require the most c0ost for the least return, unloess you are planning on denying them the opportunity for schooling at all.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90373977737451794472011-08-31T10:24:15.907-07:002011-08-31T10:24:15.907-07:00I'll freely admit I am not worrying about text...I'll freely admit I am not worrying about textbook definitions here. For the sake of clarity, in whatever further posting I may make to this thread, I define capitalism as "the system we are currently living under in America".<br /><br />Just as I normally define communism as "the system we observed in East Germany" (I choose East Germany, since it was the most advanced of the communist states), and socialism as "the system today operative within the European Union (EU)".B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23520112496846836222011-08-31T09:58:26.799-07:002011-08-31T09:58:26.799-07:00"... his analysis that capitalism requires pr..."<i>... his analysis that capitalism requires pricing commodities higher than their worth.</i>"<br /><br />The claim is <i>incoherent</i> ... but it is effective rhetoric when directed at people who wish to be deceived.<br /><br />"<i>What it DOES depend on, however, is creating demand for goods that are not really necessary.</i>"<br /><br />That's not capitalism, that's consumerism/Keynesianism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47701390064130167422011-08-31T09:39:56.531-07:002011-08-31T09:39:56.531-07:00Stevens-Arroyo has a thought provoking piece on Ca...Stevens-Arroyo has a thought provoking piece on Capitalism from a Catholic viewpoint in the Washington Post online, here: <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/catholic-america/post/time-for-a-catholic-economy/2011/08/31/gIQAgyGzrJ_blog.html<br /><br />I disagree with his analysis that capitalism requires pricing commodities higher than their worth. What it DOES depend on, however, is creating demand for goods that are not really necessary. That is at the root of many of our problems in the 21st Century, from global climate change, to overpopulation, to environmental destruction, to the sterile "mall culture" so prevalent among the youth of today's USA or Japan (and elsewhere), to our current economic recession.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75442625827412908272011-08-31T09:33:51.900-07:002011-08-31T09:33:51.900-07:00"A lot of that is selection bias. when privat..."A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools."<br /><br />"Liberals" never really stop ... hmmm ... selectively presenting "the facts", do they? "Liberal" mythology does not equal truth; and, frequently (as in this case), truth will be in the opposite direction of "liberal" mythology.<br /><br />"<i>It's great for the school. How about for the chidren not selected?</i>"<br /><br />Translation: If everyone can't get a "perfect" education (whatever that means), then it is "unjust" that one may get a <i>better</i> one.<br /><br />======<br />On the bright side, "liberals" have so chipped away at the underpinnings of all western societies that, within our lifetimes, these interminable "arguments" will come to an end. For, as a wise guy might have said recently, “When you’re trying just to survive, silly (and socially destructive) ideas like ‘social justice’ (i.e. life sinecures for “public servants”) don’t much seem to matter.”Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29357912911832264932011-08-31T09:18:58.399-07:002011-08-31T09:18:58.399-07:00Anonymouse: "If you define freedom as the abs...<b>Anonymouse:</b> "<i>If you define freedom as the absence of government, might I suggest you relocate to friendly Somalia?</i>"<br /><br />Ah! Anonymouse is a fool, perhaps one who doesn't allow fools to dictate (and waste) my time.<br /><br /><b>Anonymouse:</b> "<i>By the way, you do know that God, in the Bible, demanded that private property be handed over to pay for the poor and orphans, on penalty of death, right? <br /><br />So, it couldn't be more obvious: God is a liberal.</i>"<br /><br />... and, apparently, he's a fool who imagines he can lie about God.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com