by liberal japonicus
This is not the post I’ve been working on, but Michael Cain’s comment in the last post sets me off on a train of thought. Might not have been the one he was on, but anyway. Below the break cause there is a video down there.
One of the advantages that the Republicans have is that the Democratic party is a big tent party. Always has been, as can be seen by Will Roger’s comment “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat” ha ha, ha ha, ouch.
That means that there are always a number of competing interests. Wind power say the environmentalists, not in my back yard say the Dems in Cape Cod. Suggested diet X gets pushback from people who can’t imagine giving it up. People not completely comfortable with members from [fill in group here] push back at efforts to bring that group into the mainstream.
The job of the opposition is (or has been taken to be, a better opposition might arguably work to craft reasonable compromises) to simply heighten those disagreements. That might be to cast the people opposed as problematic (waves to Colin Kaepernick, nods to BLM folks and anyone who may have said ‘defund the police’ in a rally) And it has gotten to the point where Republicans have to use self-serving lies to heighten these differences.
One thing that the left, in its ideal form, does (or tries to do or should do) is to emphasize the shared problems and the common struggle. That is why I look in askance at libertarians and think that the Republican party is either going to choke on its own bile or explode and take all of us with it.
I live in a different country now that also has a pretty rich tradition of leftist protest that is often swept under the rug in favor of homogeneity. But it’s always there for the searching, and always ready to emerge, which is why I think knowing the history behind it is important. America, like Japan, has its own myths that are woven into the fabric. This politico article about the appeal of Ted Lasso has an interesting example:
And niceness was what Baker was asking of his constituents, as he referenced a pivotal moment in the show: During a high-stakes game of darts in a British pub, Ted tells his opponent to “be curious, not judgmental,” lest he wind up vastly underestimating Ted’s dart skills.
The clip is here:
I’ve seen several people refer to that and it is a fun moment. What they don’t say, or don’t seem to notice, is that Ted Lasso sets up Rupert by throwing the darts with his right hand to get him to wager, and then, reveals he is left handed in order to draw him in to make a bet. The Politico article argues that Ted Lasso’s niceness is what Americans feel is their foundational quality. But to me, it is more the ability to set people up and then lecture them about how they aren’t doing things right and then overlook what got them there.
To be sure, I love the show and the article notes, from an Atlantic article, one of my favorite jabs it gets in at Ted’s self conception, which is
In a care package, Ted’s young son, who still lives in Kansas, sends him a bag of toy soldiers—the small, green, plastic ones, frozen in acts of battle. Ted gives them out to his team as inspirational trinkets. He tries to give one of them to Sam, a player from Nigeria who generally shares Ted’s positive outlook. “Coach,” Sam says, “is it okay if I don’t keep this? I don’t really have the same fondness for the American military that you do.”
“Oh, sure, right,” Ted replies. “Imperialism.”
“Imperialism, yeah,” Sam says. “Thank you, coach.”
So I do think there is some awareness built into the show, but I believe it has been embraced because that awareness has only been added as a garnish rather than a main ingredient. Admittedly, it would be a lot harder to do a comedy (Ted Lasso has to deal with complaints about the lack of representation of BAME coaches, Raheem Sterling makes a cameo! It’s non-stop hilarity!!) and the show is what it is and I still like it.
Anyway, a new thread to talk about whatever while I try to finish the post I want to write.
1. Someone was telling me just the other day that I should watch Ted Lasso. Hmmmmm. Not sure this clip encourages me, but “I still like it” is a plus. Not that I watch anything onscreen these days, but you never know.
2. I came across the quote below a long time ago, I don’t remember where. I haven’t read anything else on the site it came from except the paragraphs that lead up to this one:
This is connected by more than one pathway of free association to the recent discussion of Carville and messaging. Maybe someday I’ll have the patience to flesh out the thought train.
1. Someone was telling me just the other day that I should watch Ted Lasso. Hmmmmm. Not sure this clip encourages me, but “I still like it” is a plus. Not that I watch anything onscreen these days, but you never know.
2. I came across the quote below a long time ago, I don’t remember where. I haven’t read anything else on the site it came from except the paragraphs that lead up to this one:
This is connected by more than one pathway of free association to the recent discussion of Carville and messaging. Maybe someday I’ll have the patience to flesh out the thought train.
Well you did say to talk about whatever…. 😉
Well you did say to talk about whatever…. 😉
JanieM, interesting quote. I agree with the sentiment, but the problem with it is that it is very easy for people to demand being treated one way and not being willing to treat others in the same way. And it’s easy to develop Nietzsche’s “Slave morality” to justify poor behavior on their part.
In search of a pithy example, I link to this
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawyer-steven-donziger-ecuador-house-arrest
It’s nice to say that people don’t have to be fighters, but when there are so many problems piled up around the world, being a fighter seems like part of the human condition. It would be great if it were otherwise, but I don’t see you get there from here.
Interestingly, the blogger argues that what he is arguing for is a creation of “our own Socratic myth”. Kudos for acknowledging that it would be a myth (just like America is #1 and Japan is a homogeneous country), but I wonder if he had read I. F. Stone’s The trial of Socrates and what his takeaway is.
https://www.famous-trials.com/socrates/821-ifstoneinterivew
Anyway, thank you for more thoughts for the train. I’m thinking that there is going to be some serious problems with the Olympics here
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/03/japan-nurses-voice-anger-at-call-to-volunteer-for-tokyo-olympics-amid-covid-crisis
JanieM, interesting quote. I agree with the sentiment, but the problem with it is that it is very easy for people to demand being treated one way and not being willing to treat others in the same way. And it’s easy to develop Nietzsche’s “Slave morality” to justify poor behavior on their part.
In search of a pithy example, I link to this
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawyer-steven-donziger-ecuador-house-arrest
It’s nice to say that people don’t have to be fighters, but when there are so many problems piled up around the world, being a fighter seems like part of the human condition. It would be great if it were otherwise, but I don’t see you get there from here.
Interestingly, the blogger argues that what he is arguing for is a creation of “our own Socratic myth”. Kudos for acknowledging that it would be a myth (just like America is #1 and Japan is a homogeneous country), but I wonder if he had read I. F. Stone’s The trial of Socrates and what his takeaway is.
https://www.famous-trials.com/socrates/821-ifstoneinterivew
Anyway, thank you for more thoughts for the train. I’m thinking that there is going to be some serious problems with the Olympics here
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/03/japan-nurses-voice-anger-at-call-to-volunteer-for-tokyo-olympics-amid-covid-crisis
I should also say that I get a libertarian vibe, which is he argues that the right to die is where we should all start and everything flows from that. Well, ok, but in Oregon, which is big on the Die with Dignity issue
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/ProviderPartnerResources/Evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/Pages/index.aspx
Which might be a reason why it had these problems
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/21/946292119/oregon-hospitals-didnt-have-shortages-so-why-were-disabled-people-denied-care
I should also say that I get a libertarian vibe, which is he argues that the right to die is where we should all start and everything flows from that. Well, ok, but in Oregon, which is big on the Die with Dignity issue
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/ProviderPartnerResources/Evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/Pages/index.aspx
Which might be a reason why it had these problems
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/21/946292119/oregon-hospitals-didnt-have-shortages-so-why-were-disabled-people-denied-care
being a fighter seems like part of the human condition.
Just like being straight is part of the human condition?
Can you force people to be fighters, or are you [the general “you”] just going to preach at them so they feel guilty if they’re not?
This reminds me of my archetypal story of the woman who got up during “Joys and Concerns” the first time I went to a UU church. She made an impassioned speech about how “We have to do something about Bosnia!” And I was sitting there thinking, I can’t even get my kids to stop squabbling, wtf does she think I’m going to do about Bosnia?
being a fighter seems like part of the human condition.
Just like being straight is part of the human condition?
Can you force people to be fighters, or are you [the general “you”] just going to preach at them so they feel guilty if they’re not?
This reminds me of my archetypal story of the woman who got up during “Joys and Concerns” the first time I went to a UU church. She made an impassioned speech about how “We have to do something about Bosnia!” And I was sitting there thinking, I can’t even get my kids to stop squabbling, wtf does she think I’m going to do about Bosnia?
PS, I wrote “can you force people to be fighters” — when if I’m true to my own way of seeing it, I’d have to write “can you force people to try to fight whether they’re capable of it or suited to it or not?”
You can’t force me to be an NBA player, either.
PS, I wrote “can you force people to be fighters” — when if I’m true to my own way of seeing it, I’d have to write “can you force people to try to fight whether they’re capable of it or suited to it or not?”
You can’t force me to be an NBA player, either.
TBH before this post I never heard of Ted Lasso. I don’t have the sports gene, and we don’t have AppleTV, so I guess it never crossed my radar.
Nice is better than not-nice, I guess. But I’m not sure it’s something that Americans think of as their foundational quality. Lasso’s character is, apparently, ‘Kansas nice’. But everywhere isn’t Kansas.
I’m from NY, and have lived in the NYC area, Philly, and now metro Boston. Not places that are famous for being ‘nice’. Good thing, bad thing, I couldn’t tell you. Nice or not, people in those places still get each other’s backs.
And Kansas, of course, has its own history, which is not always nice.
When I meet people who are nice, I always wait a bit to see what they’re like over time.
I’m not sure how other folks – folks in other countries – see us, I think we’re kind of a mixed bag.
TBH before this post I never heard of Ted Lasso. I don’t have the sports gene, and we don’t have AppleTV, so I guess it never crossed my radar.
Nice is better than not-nice, I guess. But I’m not sure it’s something that Americans think of as their foundational quality. Lasso’s character is, apparently, ‘Kansas nice’. But everywhere isn’t Kansas.
I’m from NY, and have lived in the NYC area, Philly, and now metro Boston. Not places that are famous for being ‘nice’. Good thing, bad thing, I couldn’t tell you. Nice or not, people in those places still get each other’s backs.
And Kansas, of course, has its own history, which is not always nice.
When I meet people who are nice, I always wait a bit to see what they’re like over time.
I’m not sure how other folks – folks in other countries – see us, I think we’re kind of a mixed bag.
PS #2, how on earth do you find the time to do all the reading you do? Are you a speed-reader? 😉
PS #2, how on earth do you find the time to do all the reading you do? Are you a speed-reader? 😉
I know someone who is possibly the world’s most accomplished professional victim. He is blissfully unaware that he goes around steamrollering people, i.e. he’s a bully, but of a very sophisticated variety. When called on any particular instance, he always frames the interaction as one in which he was facing daunting odds and had to take a strong stand lest he himself be bullied.
The Ted Lasso clip is sort of like that. The friends who told me I should watch the show said how nice he was, and how he brought this unusual way of functioning into the cutthroat world of soccer (?). But in this clip, he seems like kind of an asshole, and apparently that’s justified because Rupert is a bigger asshole…? Am I getting it right? (I think that’s part of your point, lj, but I want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting the clip or you.)
I know someone who is possibly the world’s most accomplished professional victim. He is blissfully unaware that he goes around steamrollering people, i.e. he’s a bully, but of a very sophisticated variety. When called on any particular instance, he always frames the interaction as one in which he was facing daunting odds and had to take a strong stand lest he himself be bullied.
The Ted Lasso clip is sort of like that. The friends who told me I should watch the show said how nice he was, and how he brought this unusual way of functioning into the cutthroat world of soccer (?). But in this clip, he seems like kind of an asshole, and apparently that’s justified because Rupert is a bigger asshole…? Am I getting it right? (I think that’s part of your point, lj, but I want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting the clip or you.)
it is very easy for people to demand being treated one way and not being willing to treat others in the same way.
I don’t get what this has to do with the assertion that people may not be fighters, or may choose not to fight.
As to the latter, this is related to “Resist not evil.” I feel like we’ve lost, or never had, or only a few people ever had (the Gandhis or Tutus of the world), an ability to conceptualize any interaction as anything but a fight or a potential fight. Every obituary of someone with cancer says the person “fought a courageous battle.” No one ever dances with cancer, or complains about it, or endures it, or just lives with it.
“Resist not evil” covers a lot of ground, but it can be something like what Danaan did in a workshop in Northern Ireland. Instead of trying to facilitate a dialogue between the warring parties about the thing that divided them (religion, to oversimplify), he told people he wanted all the men on one side of the room and all the women on the other. Then he got the women talking to each other, e.g. about all the ways their husbands drove them crazy. And similarly with the men. And they started to see that they had stuff in common across that seemingly intractable divide of theirs.
To me this isn’t fighting or resisting — but is it “doing nothing.”
Someone wants to fight about politics, ask them to help you shovel the walk.
it is very easy for people to demand being treated one way and not being willing to treat others in the same way.
I don’t get what this has to do with the assertion that people may not be fighters, or may choose not to fight.
As to the latter, this is related to “Resist not evil.” I feel like we’ve lost, or never had, or only a few people ever had (the Gandhis or Tutus of the world), an ability to conceptualize any interaction as anything but a fight or a potential fight. Every obituary of someone with cancer says the person “fought a courageous battle.” No one ever dances with cancer, or complains about it, or endures it, or just lives with it.
“Resist not evil” covers a lot of ground, but it can be something like what Danaan did in a workshop in Northern Ireland. Instead of trying to facilitate a dialogue between the warring parties about the thing that divided them (religion, to oversimplify), he told people he wanted all the men on one side of the room and all the women on the other. Then he got the women talking to each other, e.g. about all the ways their husbands drove them crazy. And similarly with the men. And they started to see that they had stuff in common across that seemingly intractable divide of theirs.
To me this isn’t fighting or resisting — but is it “doing nothing.”
Someone wants to fight about politics, ask them to help you shovel the walk.
…But in this clip, he seems like kind of an asshole…
Yes, to me too.
Actually what bothers me more is that it’s just lazy writing.
Going back to the meat of the header, I disagree. In a two party democracy (ie the absence of proportional representation), being a ‘big tent’ coalition is pretty well essential in the long run.
…But in this clip, he seems like kind of an asshole…
Yes, to me too.
Actually what bothers me more is that it’s just lazy writing.
Going back to the meat of the header, I disagree. In a two party democracy (ie the absence of proportional representation), being a ‘big tent’ coalition is pretty well essential in the long run.
Just for russell, some exceptional free form jazz.
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1389460006408495105
Just for russell, some exceptional free form jazz.
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1389460006408495105
Interesting stuff. A day of correcting ESL compositions makes writing something more interesting nice, so thanks for the feedback.
Important stuff first. I read way.too.fast. I think it came from when I would be given enough for 1 comic book and I learned to read all the comics in the rack before someone would say anything. (I wonder if that would have happened here in Japan where they used to have tachiyomi for almost everything).
My English reading speed makes it so reading in Japanese is painfully slow (it also has me find podcasts rather boring unless I’m driving long distances). Reading in a language with a roman alphabet is tolerable if I’ve gotten the vocab (and can rely on cognates), but Japanese (and Korean) would just have me pull my hair out. I try, but I am perpetually frustrated.
About fighting, I guess it depends on what you mean by the term. I do (or did, pre COVID) martial arts, so I was generally ‘fighting’ more days than not. I do aikido, which is a pretty strange form of fighting (and go to youtube and you’ll see a lot of videos saying it ain’t got anything to do with fighting), but in the sense of competing, it has that sense. Russell, who has admitted to being totally unAmerican by not having the sports gene (I keeed!) is, I’m sure, familiar with the story of Charlie Parker getting the cymbal thrown at his feet.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/17/charlie-parker-cymbal-thrown
(incidentally the movie Whiplash uses this story, but misses that it means
https://slate.com/culture/2014/10/whiplash-charlie-parker-and-the-cymbal-what-the-movie-gets-wrong-about-genius-work-and-the-10000-hours-myth.html )
So I appreciate Russell’s rejection of sports and the competiveness that goes with it, I think he’ll have to admit that competition is something that is a creative force. I’d suggest that part of the African-American experience is that intense competition culture (from cutting contests to rap battles and other stops in between). I think it is a problem, but I think it is baked into the cultural cake. I also think of the parry and jab of comments as ‘fighting’ but I don’t think the goal is to win. Finding an neat example or making a good fun point is the goal. But if (imagining this were basketball) someone decides poke you while you are up in the air or slide their foot under you so you land and twist your ankle, that’s not cool.
The thing about sports is that a certain level of competition is required to make moments truely come off. Dr. J going behind the basket and laying up the ball only becomes meaningful when you have Kareem Abdul Jabbar coming over to try and stop it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOnvr2dTyk
So I take a pretty broad view of the meaning of ‘fighting’. Writing letters to the editor is ‘fighting’, refusing to let someone insult or mistreat someone else or yourself is ‘fighting’. Ignoring insults and explaining calmly and concisely what the problem is, to my mind, is fighting. I _do_ object to people telling me (or others) _how_ they are supposed to fight. People fight/compete using the resources and skills they have.
The example of Ireland is interesting. The way I would take it is that the ‘fighting’ had become something so intractable that they had to be moved out of their positions. If I said that was finding a different way to fight the fight (which was against the intractability of the conflict), would that make my idea of ‘fighting’ a little clearer?
I understand Nigel’s disagreement, but I’d suggest that one of the problems with the US is that one party is a big tent party and the other, in recent times, never has been and never will be one.
And about Ted Lasso. Well, Kansas nice isn’t really a concept I grab onto given that Brownback is who comes to mind when I think of Kansas, so I roll my eyes a bit at that. But the article also misses a bit, yes, Jason Sudekis is from Overview Kansas, but his fictional backstory has him coaching the Wichita State Shockers to a victory in the Rose Bowl, impressive given that Wichita State dropped football in 1986…
https://www.wichita.edu/about/wsunews/news/2020/08-aug/Lasso_5.php
And I like it because I follow Premier League fairly closely as well, (which I imagine will be gone if 5 years or so
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/03/premier-league-to-introduce-measures-to-stop-threat-of-breakaway-leagues )
and the idea of an American coach getting hired there is really theater of the absurd. So it is easier to suspend disbelief about a whole range of things.
Anyway, interesting stuff, keep it coming!
Interesting stuff. A day of correcting ESL compositions makes writing something more interesting nice, so thanks for the feedback.
Important stuff first. I read way.too.fast. I think it came from when I would be given enough for 1 comic book and I learned to read all the comics in the rack before someone would say anything. (I wonder if that would have happened here in Japan where they used to have tachiyomi for almost everything).
My English reading speed makes it so reading in Japanese is painfully slow (it also has me find podcasts rather boring unless I’m driving long distances). Reading in a language with a roman alphabet is tolerable if I’ve gotten the vocab (and can rely on cognates), but Japanese (and Korean) would just have me pull my hair out. I try, but I am perpetually frustrated.
About fighting, I guess it depends on what you mean by the term. I do (or did, pre COVID) martial arts, so I was generally ‘fighting’ more days than not. I do aikido, which is a pretty strange form of fighting (and go to youtube and you’ll see a lot of videos saying it ain’t got anything to do with fighting), but in the sense of competing, it has that sense. Russell, who has admitted to being totally unAmerican by not having the sports gene (I keeed!) is, I’m sure, familiar with the story of Charlie Parker getting the cymbal thrown at his feet.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/17/charlie-parker-cymbal-thrown
(incidentally the movie Whiplash uses this story, but misses that it means
https://slate.com/culture/2014/10/whiplash-charlie-parker-and-the-cymbal-what-the-movie-gets-wrong-about-genius-work-and-the-10000-hours-myth.html )
So I appreciate Russell’s rejection of sports and the competiveness that goes with it, I think he’ll have to admit that competition is something that is a creative force. I’d suggest that part of the African-American experience is that intense competition culture (from cutting contests to rap battles and other stops in between). I think it is a problem, but I think it is baked into the cultural cake. I also think of the parry and jab of comments as ‘fighting’ but I don’t think the goal is to win. Finding an neat example or making a good fun point is the goal. But if (imagining this were basketball) someone decides poke you while you are up in the air or slide their foot under you so you land and twist your ankle, that’s not cool.
The thing about sports is that a certain level of competition is required to make moments truely come off. Dr. J going behind the basket and laying up the ball only becomes meaningful when you have Kareem Abdul Jabbar coming over to try and stop it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOnvr2dTyk
So I take a pretty broad view of the meaning of ‘fighting’. Writing letters to the editor is ‘fighting’, refusing to let someone insult or mistreat someone else or yourself is ‘fighting’. Ignoring insults and explaining calmly and concisely what the problem is, to my mind, is fighting. I _do_ object to people telling me (or others) _how_ they are supposed to fight. People fight/compete using the resources and skills they have.
The example of Ireland is interesting. The way I would take it is that the ‘fighting’ had become something so intractable that they had to be moved out of their positions. If I said that was finding a different way to fight the fight (which was against the intractability of the conflict), would that make my idea of ‘fighting’ a little clearer?
I understand Nigel’s disagreement, but I’d suggest that one of the problems with the US is that one party is a big tent party and the other, in recent times, never has been and never will be one.
And about Ted Lasso. Well, Kansas nice isn’t really a concept I grab onto given that Brownback is who comes to mind when I think of Kansas, so I roll my eyes a bit at that. But the article also misses a bit, yes, Jason Sudekis is from Overview Kansas, but his fictional backstory has him coaching the Wichita State Shockers to a victory in the Rose Bowl, impressive given that Wichita State dropped football in 1986…
https://www.wichita.edu/about/wsunews/news/2020/08-aug/Lasso_5.php
And I like it because I follow Premier League fairly closely as well, (which I imagine will be gone if 5 years or so
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/03/premier-league-to-introduce-measures-to-stop-threat-of-breakaway-leagues )
and the idea of an American coach getting hired there is really theater of the absurd. So it is easier to suspend disbelief about a whole range of things.
Anyway, interesting stuff, keep it coming!
the idea of an American coach getting hired there is really theater of the absurd
Bob Bradley was hired by Swansea’s US owners in 2016. It took them about three months to change their minds.
the idea of an American coach getting hired there is really theater of the absurd
Bob Bradley was hired by Swansea’s US owners in 2016. It took them about three months to change their minds.
Every obituary of someone with cancer says the person “fought a courageous battle.”
My wife’s obituary doesn’t – I wrote it and I hate that imagery. It says that she made the most of the time that she had.
Every obituary of someone with cancer says the person “fought a courageous battle.”
My wife’s obituary doesn’t – I wrote it and I hate that imagery. It says that she made the most of the time that she had.
Pro Bono — thanks for mentioning that. My “every obit” was an exaggeration, but it’s not too far off the mark in the obits I see here in Maine and from my home area in Ohio. I hate the imagery too. We chuckle over my mom having drafted her own obit, years and years before she ended up dying, but I’m tempted to draft bits of mine myself, if only to tell my kids that I don’t want battle imagery in it.
*****
lj — I want to mostly leave what I wrote sitting there, but you’re arguing as if I said fighting is wrong, or fighting should be abolished. I said nothing of the sort.
By the proxy of that quote, I suggested that people should be able to choose not to fight. That’s a very different assertion. Almost every activist I have ever known spends a fair amount of time guilt-tripping and/or crapping on people who won’t “fight” for the cause, with no recognition at all that there might be other ways, even other valid and/or effective ways, of meeting the challenges of existence. (Obviously all of this is airy-fairy philosophizing. What does “effective” mean? Etc.)
Besides believing that people should have the choice of not fighting, I also do wish that less of our imagery and metaphorical framing of life was in terms of fighting. I think it’s limiting, to say the very least.
Pro Bono — thanks for mentioning that. My “every obit” was an exaggeration, but it’s not too far off the mark in the obits I see here in Maine and from my home area in Ohio. I hate the imagery too. We chuckle over my mom having drafted her own obit, years and years before she ended up dying, but I’m tempted to draft bits of mine myself, if only to tell my kids that I don’t want battle imagery in it.
*****
lj — I want to mostly leave what I wrote sitting there, but you’re arguing as if I said fighting is wrong, or fighting should be abolished. I said nothing of the sort.
By the proxy of that quote, I suggested that people should be able to choose not to fight. That’s a very different assertion. Almost every activist I have ever known spends a fair amount of time guilt-tripping and/or crapping on people who won’t “fight” for the cause, with no recognition at all that there might be other ways, even other valid and/or effective ways, of meeting the challenges of existence. (Obviously all of this is airy-fairy philosophizing. What does “effective” mean? Etc.)
Besides believing that people should have the choice of not fighting, I also do wish that less of our imagery and metaphorical framing of life was in terms of fighting. I think it’s limiting, to say the very least.
lj — Also, Danaan Parry was a practitioner of aikido. He took a lot of his metaphors and even some of his workshop exercises from that world. I’m not sure he would have made the absolute statement that it doesn’t have anything to do with fighting, but he would have been in that territory.
This is my many-years-later rephrasing of something I only understood dimly at the time, but he connected “resist not evil” with the way, in aikido, you try to use your opponent’s energy rather (necessarily) than opposing it directly. I have actually been thinking that Joe Biden’s way, at the moment, of pretty much ignoring the RW noise machine is an example of that. Why waste your energy trying to contradict all the nonsense when the whole thing is like a permanent vicious Gish Gallop? Etc.
lj — Also, Danaan Parry was a practitioner of aikido. He took a lot of his metaphors and even some of his workshop exercises from that world. I’m not sure he would have made the absolute statement that it doesn’t have anything to do with fighting, but he would have been in that territory.
This is my many-years-later rephrasing of something I only understood dimly at the time, but he connected “resist not evil” with the way, in aikido, you try to use your opponent’s energy rather (necessarily) than opposing it directly. I have actually been thinking that Joe Biden’s way, at the moment, of pretty much ignoring the RW noise machine is an example of that. Why waste your energy trying to contradict all the nonsense when the whole thing is like a permanent vicious Gish Gallop? Etc.
I appreciate Russell’s rejection of sports and the competiveness that goes with it, I think he’ll have to admit that competition is something that is a creative force.
to be clear, it’s not really a matter of rejecting sports, they just aren’t interesting to me. hard to say why, I’d just rather do other things.
competition is absolutely a creative force. competition, ambition, the desire to excel and the need for a way to measure all of that, is pretty much baked in to being human, IMO. and then, the need to keep all of it on a leash, so that it serves you rather than turns you into a jerk.
in a musical context, the inability to keep it on a leash becomes audible, and not in a good way.
the really best players, with very few exceptions, get to a place where they see what they do as a form of service.
you have to have the fire in the belly, at least to start. but then it has to become about something other than you, or it will all turn sterile. solipsistic wanking.
a big topic, that, with lots to say about it.
I studied aikido very briefly. Unfortunately I started study when I was 60, which doesn’t rule it out, but which definitely presents unique challenges. The ukemi practice made me really dizzy – like, vertigo for a day or two – so I stopped. It’s an outstanding art.
Among my most remarkable aikido experiences was taking a class with a blind instructor. The man could put you on your ass in a heartbeat. Just remarkable.
And, the practice really did call out the difference between players who had their competitive urge on a leash, and those who did not.
A friend of mine says, “We all have an ego, I try to leave mine in the car”.
I appreciate Russell’s rejection of sports and the competiveness that goes with it, I think he’ll have to admit that competition is something that is a creative force.
to be clear, it’s not really a matter of rejecting sports, they just aren’t interesting to me. hard to say why, I’d just rather do other things.
competition is absolutely a creative force. competition, ambition, the desire to excel and the need for a way to measure all of that, is pretty much baked in to being human, IMO. and then, the need to keep all of it on a leash, so that it serves you rather than turns you into a jerk.
in a musical context, the inability to keep it on a leash becomes audible, and not in a good way.
the really best players, with very few exceptions, get to a place where they see what they do as a form of service.
you have to have the fire in the belly, at least to start. but then it has to become about something other than you, or it will all turn sterile. solipsistic wanking.
a big topic, that, with lots to say about it.
I studied aikido very briefly. Unfortunately I started study when I was 60, which doesn’t rule it out, but which definitely presents unique challenges. The ukemi practice made me really dizzy – like, vertigo for a day or two – so I stopped. It’s an outstanding art.
Among my most remarkable aikido experiences was taking a class with a blind instructor. The man could put you on your ass in a heartbeat. Just remarkable.
And, the practice really did call out the difference between players who had their competitive urge on a leash, and those who did not.
A friend of mine says, “We all have an ego, I try to leave mine in the car”.
russell — contra dancing triggered my vertigo. Luckily, my time in the contra dance world was mostly playing the fiddle in the band. But even watching people spin sometimes put me on the edge.
russell — contra dancing triggered my vertigo. Luckily, my time in the contra dance world was mostly playing the fiddle in the band. But even watching people spin sometimes put me on the edge.
I think Janie and lj are saying the same thing, but expressing it differently – except for the framing part, since that’s a matter of how you express what you’re saying.
Janie, ISTM, is using “fight” in a more narrow way, something closer to the literal meaning than lj is. I think lj is using “fight” to describe almost any action in the furtherance of a cause.
If it’s all about the framing, then they disagree. Otherwise, not so much. But it’s an interesting discussion.
The obit thing might be an example of something that bugs me – when people try to force something positive out of something that is fundamentally complete sh*t. It seems to be a way of making yourself feel better, but I think the more direct way to find peace is to accept that some things are fundamentally complete sh*t and see those things for what they are without trying to delude yourself into thinking they’re something else. The universe is indifferent to us, if something that lacks agency can even be said to be indifferent.
The opposite of that is when people choose to be sh*tty and tell you “life isn’t fair.” That used to drive me nuts when I was a kid. Someone in authority would decide on something concerning me, and I would say “that’s not fair.” Rather than telling me why it really was fair, they’d give me the “life’s not fair” line. Yeah, because human beings don’t control everything. But you are in control of this thing, so the unfairness of life in general has nothing to do with it!
I think Janie and lj are saying the same thing, but expressing it differently – except for the framing part, since that’s a matter of how you express what you’re saying.
Janie, ISTM, is using “fight” in a more narrow way, something closer to the literal meaning than lj is. I think lj is using “fight” to describe almost any action in the furtherance of a cause.
If it’s all about the framing, then they disagree. Otherwise, not so much. But it’s an interesting discussion.
The obit thing might be an example of something that bugs me – when people try to force something positive out of something that is fundamentally complete sh*t. It seems to be a way of making yourself feel better, but I think the more direct way to find peace is to accept that some things are fundamentally complete sh*t and see those things for what they are without trying to delude yourself into thinking they’re something else. The universe is indifferent to us, if something that lacks agency can even be said to be indifferent.
The opposite of that is when people choose to be sh*tty and tell you “life isn’t fair.” That used to drive me nuts when I was a kid. Someone in authority would decide on something concerning me, and I would say “that’s not fair.” Rather than telling me why it really was fair, they’d give me the “life’s not fair” line. Yeah, because human beings don’t control everything. But you are in control of this thing, so the unfairness of life in general has nothing to do with it!
hsh — maybe you’re right about lj and me — and I’ll try to come back to that later.
Right now I’m chuckling over your mention of your childhood relationship to the word “fair.”
I used to tell my kids (I have two) that I didn’t want to hear that word — not because “life isn’t fair” but because what’s fair is so often not measurable. It depends on the framing!
As an example, they used to fight over who got to sit in the front seat when we went anywhere in the car. We devised a “fair” system whereby one of them got to be in the front on the outward trip (whether it was to the grocery store or Ohio), and the other on the homeward trip. And they alternated who got to go first.
Okay, that’s more fair than one always having to sit in the back, but the determining moment for switching was when we were at the furthest point from home. So, what if, because of the mix of errands that day, the outward trip was much longer than the homeward trip?
Oh well! Life’s not fair! 😉
How do you handle “fairness” with your kids?
hsh — maybe you’re right about lj and me — and I’ll try to come back to that later.
Right now I’m chuckling over your mention of your childhood relationship to the word “fair.”
I used to tell my kids (I have two) that I didn’t want to hear that word — not because “life isn’t fair” but because what’s fair is so often not measurable. It depends on the framing!
As an example, they used to fight over who got to sit in the front seat when we went anywhere in the car. We devised a “fair” system whereby one of them got to be in the front on the outward trip (whether it was to the grocery store or Ohio), and the other on the homeward trip. And they alternated who got to go first.
Okay, that’s more fair than one always having to sit in the back, but the determining moment for switching was when we were at the furthest point from home. So, what if, because of the mix of errands that day, the outward trip was much longer than the homeward trip?
Oh well! Life’s not fair! 😉
How do you handle “fairness” with your kids?
I think hairshirt has the insight. There also may be a gender thing at play here, with culture telling us that men are supposed to fight, and women are not. I guess one way to deal with it is to limit fighting to something more constrained, or alternatively, to make fighting something more general.
I never really noticed the tendency in obits about fight, I just looked at my mother’s obituary that I wrote and it just started with […] died on… and then launched into her life, though she did die of cancer. But I do know people who say they are going to ‘beat’ it and I’m not sure what to tell them to use as an alternative. I’m not sure if the use of fight in that context is trying to make something good out of something bad, it is trying to acknowledge that they were taken away (another interesting metaphor) by something that and the people around them didn’t want it to happen.
And wrs in regard to competition. That’s why we have rules, I think.
My latest metaphor for my students is ‘eating the frog’. I’m trying to get them to work to get some stuff done and I’m suggesting they try to get the hardest task done first. Not sure if it will work, but we will see.
I think hairshirt has the insight. There also may be a gender thing at play here, with culture telling us that men are supposed to fight, and women are not. I guess one way to deal with it is to limit fighting to something more constrained, or alternatively, to make fighting something more general.
I never really noticed the tendency in obits about fight, I just looked at my mother’s obituary that I wrote and it just started with […] died on… and then launched into her life, though she did die of cancer. But I do know people who say they are going to ‘beat’ it and I’m not sure what to tell them to use as an alternative. I’m not sure if the use of fight in that context is trying to make something good out of something bad, it is trying to acknowledge that they were taken away (another interesting metaphor) by something that and the people around them didn’t want it to happen.
And wrs in regard to competition. That’s why we have rules, I think.
My latest metaphor for my students is ‘eating the frog’. I’m trying to get them to work to get some stuff done and I’m suggesting they try to get the hardest task done first. Not sure if it will work, but we will see.
Random-ish thoughts:
I’m with russell on sports – just not interested. The exception is tennis (not always, just at various times of my life) when the joy was watching certain players do extraordinary things. I know e.g. football players can (I’ve seen some of the goals etc) but they just don’t move me the way tennis does.
On fighting: I guess I’m with lj in that I have always just assumed that there were many, many different ways to fight, and that some suited some people better than others. That’s what I was getting at when I said on the other thread that I had assumed the opposite of resistance was to do nothing, because there were so many different ways to resist. If you had asked me before this whole conversation on ObWi had come up what I thought of Gandhi, I might well have said that I thought him one of the greatest and most successful fighters in history.
The Danaan story in Northern Ireland is similar to stories I have heard about South African involvement there, and is what I see as another form of resistance. Resisting the “othering” of other communities, and finding the way to feel the common humanity.
I suppose, just thinking aloud here, that the way I was brought up has established the concepts of “fighting” and “resistance” as foundational necessities for someone trying to live a decent life. In the first instance, being born into a society which practised apartheid, and in a context where millions of jews had recently been exterminated, and being raised by parents who always thought that it was necessary to do something about these kinds of injustices, it was just a given that “fighting” (in whatever form it took) against evil was what you did. (A good example in South Africa – although not one my family was involved in – was a wonderful women’s organisation called the Black Sash. They were white women who used to protest against apartheid by the non-violent protest of wearing a black sash and keeping silent vigils outside government offices and Parliament. It was a haunting image.)
So, to me, given the existence of evil, cruelty, injustice, and prejudice in the world, it is almost part of the definition of being a decent human that one finds ways, no matter how symbolic, or personal, of declaring oneself against those things and on the side of the oppressed.
But we are all formed by different experiences. Perhaps it is a partly a function of privilege: I was brought up to feel that I had agency in the world, by parents who felt they had agency and acted accordingly. And of course, as in the cases of Gandhi or the Black Sash, the set of available actions was only limited by one’s imagination, or perhaps one’s personal leanings.
(As to what confers the sense of privilege in different circumstances, as we know that is an interesting and vexed question).
I agree with Janie, Pro Bono and hsh on the obit thing. I am ashamed when I remember how, years ago, I wrote a condolence letter which used the battle metaphor, which in those days I had never thought to question. Ah well, we live and learn.
Random-ish thoughts:
I’m with russell on sports – just not interested. The exception is tennis (not always, just at various times of my life) when the joy was watching certain players do extraordinary things. I know e.g. football players can (I’ve seen some of the goals etc) but they just don’t move me the way tennis does.
On fighting: I guess I’m with lj in that I have always just assumed that there were many, many different ways to fight, and that some suited some people better than others. That’s what I was getting at when I said on the other thread that I had assumed the opposite of resistance was to do nothing, because there were so many different ways to resist. If you had asked me before this whole conversation on ObWi had come up what I thought of Gandhi, I might well have said that I thought him one of the greatest and most successful fighters in history.
The Danaan story in Northern Ireland is similar to stories I have heard about South African involvement there, and is what I see as another form of resistance. Resisting the “othering” of other communities, and finding the way to feel the common humanity.
I suppose, just thinking aloud here, that the way I was brought up has established the concepts of “fighting” and “resistance” as foundational necessities for someone trying to live a decent life. In the first instance, being born into a society which practised apartheid, and in a context where millions of jews had recently been exterminated, and being raised by parents who always thought that it was necessary to do something about these kinds of injustices, it was just a given that “fighting” (in whatever form it took) against evil was what you did. (A good example in South Africa – although not one my family was involved in – was a wonderful women’s organisation called the Black Sash. They were white women who used to protest against apartheid by the non-violent protest of wearing a black sash and keeping silent vigils outside government offices and Parliament. It was a haunting image.)
So, to me, given the existence of evil, cruelty, injustice, and prejudice in the world, it is almost part of the definition of being a decent human that one finds ways, no matter how symbolic, or personal, of declaring oneself against those things and on the side of the oppressed.
But we are all formed by different experiences. Perhaps it is a partly a function of privilege: I was brought up to feel that I had agency in the world, by parents who felt they had agency and acted accordingly. And of course, as in the cases of Gandhi or the Black Sash, the set of available actions was only limited by one’s imagination, or perhaps one’s personal leanings.
(As to what confers the sense of privilege in different circumstances, as we know that is an interesting and vexed question).
I agree with Janie, Pro Bono and hsh on the obit thing. I am ashamed when I remember how, years ago, I wrote a condolence letter which used the battle metaphor, which in those days I had never thought to question. Ah well, we live and learn.
lj, is “eating the frog” from Lampedusa’s The Leopard? I remember that was a wonderful image he used to portray his protagonist’s struggles to come to terms with a changing world, in which his form of privilege was dying. There are graphic passages about having to choke down the last gristly bit…
lj, is “eating the frog” from Lampedusa’s The Leopard? I remember that was a wonderful image he used to portray his protagonist’s struggles to come to terms with a changing world, in which his form of privilege was dying. There are graphic passages about having to choke down the last gristly bit…
So, to me, given the existence of evil, cruelty, injustice, and prejudice in the world, it is almost part of the definition of being a decent human that one finds ways, no matter how symbolic, or personal, of declaring oneself against those things and on the side of the oppressed.
“decent”
Yup, I need say no more.
So, to me, given the existence of evil, cruelty, injustice, and prejudice in the world, it is almost part of the definition of being a decent human that one finds ways, no matter how symbolic, or personal, of declaring oneself against those things and on the side of the oppressed.
“decent”
Yup, I need say no more.
The idea of “eating a frog” seems to come from Nicolas Chamfort’s Maximes, Pensées, Caractères et Anecdotes (link).
But here it’s swallowing a toad, and the intention is to steel oneself to face the horrors of society, rather than the sense of avoiding procrastination in lj’s admonition.
The Leopard uses swallowing a toad as a metaphor for an unpleasant conversation, apparently borrowing directly from Chamfort.
The idea of “eating a frog” seems to come from Nicolas Chamfort’s Maximes, Pensées, Caractères et Anecdotes (link).
But here it’s swallowing a toad, and the intention is to steel oneself to face the horrors of society, rather than the sense of avoiding procrastination in lj’s admonition.
The Leopard uses swallowing a toad as a metaphor for an unpleasant conversation, apparently borrowing directly from Chamfort.
Yes, and clearly by decent I mean “one who tries to value their fellow humans as themselves and acts accordingly”.
I always found it an interesting question during the apartheid years: what do you conclude about the white people who go on living quietly in South Africa, benefitting from the subjection and disenfranchisement of the majority of the population, without practising any overt cruelty themselves? If all they did was obey the laws of the land, could they rightfully be considered as complicit in the injustice or not?
Yes, and clearly by decent I mean “one who tries to value their fellow humans as themselves and acts accordingly”.
I always found it an interesting question during the apartheid years: what do you conclude about the white people who go on living quietly in South Africa, benefitting from the subjection and disenfranchisement of the majority of the population, without practising any overt cruelty themselves? If all they did was obey the laws of the land, could they rightfully be considered as complicit in the injustice or not?
I picked it up from a blogpost about teaching and liked it. fun to see where it might have started.
I picked it up from a blogpost about teaching and liked it. fun to see where it might have started.
You can’t force me to be an NBA player, either.
Actually (given a free hand and no scruples), I bet I could. What I couldn’t do is make you, let alone force you to be, a great NBA player. Sorry!
Same way with making people fighters. The vast, overwhelming, majority can be at least coerced into it in a pinch. Absolute pacifists are rare on the ground.
Most “pacifists” I’ve known had objections to certain reasons for fighting. Occasionally motivated by risk to themselves, especially in 1-on-1 situations. But blanket refusal? Extremely unusual.
You can’t force me to be an NBA player, either.
Actually (given a free hand and no scruples), I bet I could. What I couldn’t do is make you, let alone force you to be, a great NBA player. Sorry!
Same way with making people fighters. The vast, overwhelming, majority can be at least coerced into it in a pinch. Absolute pacifists are rare on the ground.
Most “pacifists” I’ve known had objections to certain reasons for fighting. Occasionally motivated by risk to themselves, especially in 1-on-1 situations. But blanket refusal? Extremely unusual.
there’s an “Eat The Frog” gym near me.
there’s an “Eat The Frog” gym near me.
To tie lj’s and russell’s point to mine. While you can probably make almost anybody fight, if you’re smart you’ll try to have them use the talents they have. The greatest spy ever might well make a terrible combat infantryman. And vis versa.
Sometimes, admittedly, you have a small enough pool that you’re just making the best of matching all the required jobs and available people. And praying you get the least worst solution. But nobody would prefer that option.
To tie lj’s and russell’s point to mine. While you can probably make almost anybody fight, if you’re smart you’ll try to have them use the talents they have. The greatest spy ever might well make a terrible combat infantryman. And vis versa.
Sometimes, admittedly, you have a small enough pool that you’re just making the best of matching all the required jobs and available people. And praying you get the least worst solution. But nobody would prefer that option.
Pro Bono: thank you for the original derivation of that image. How interesting. My memory (it’s a long time since I read it) is that the Prince of Salina is having to carry out the unpleasant conversation as part of an ongoing acknowledgement that his world is changing in ways that he would once have found unthinkable. I might be wrong, but if I’m not, the image of the last gristly bits having to be choked down was particularly brilliant in how it conveyed the sequence of his accommodation.
Pro Bono: thank you for the original derivation of that image. How interesting. My memory (it’s a long time since I read it) is that the Prince of Salina is having to carry out the unpleasant conversation as part of an ongoing acknowledgement that his world is changing in ways that he would once have found unthinkable. I might be wrong, but if I’m not, the image of the last gristly bits having to be choked down was particularly brilliant in how it conveyed the sequence of his accommodation.
Gandhi is an interesting case. He clearly preferred non-violent means, for both practical and moral reasons. But he also thought violence was justifiable, when it was necessary for self-defense.
If you are already prepared to fight, you can advance to a non-violent stance, and that should be preferred, because it preserves the humanity of your opponent.
But if you are not willing to fight, that is not non-violence, it is cowardice.
The real line in the sand is: are you willing to die for what you believe.
Or so says Gandhi, if I understand him correctly.
Even MLK carried a gun.
Gandhi is an interesting case. He clearly preferred non-violent means, for both practical and moral reasons. But he also thought violence was justifiable, when it was necessary for self-defense.
If you are already prepared to fight, you can advance to a non-violent stance, and that should be preferred, because it preserves the humanity of your opponent.
But if you are not willing to fight, that is not non-violence, it is cowardice.
The real line in the sand is: are you willing to die for what you believe.
Or so says Gandhi, if I understand him correctly.
Even MLK carried a gun.
You remind me, russell, of the concluding words of Nelson Mandela’s great speech from the dock:
I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But, My Lord, if it needs to be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Thus showing (as if there was any doubt!) which issue formed the foundation of my thinking these kinds of matters.
(As a complete aside, I believe from something my mother said years ago that my grandfather, whom I never met, knew – or met – Gandhi when he lived in South Africa. I know nothing further, and it’s too late to find out now, like it is about so many things. But I would love to know the details, my grandfather was apparently quite something,, as I have indicated here when I have repeated the “England the whore” story.)
You remind me, russell, of the concluding words of Nelson Mandela’s great speech from the dock:
I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But, My Lord, if it needs to be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Thus showing (as if there was any doubt!) which issue formed the foundation of my thinking these kinds of matters.
(As a complete aside, I believe from something my mother said years ago that my grandfather, whom I never met, knew – or met – Gandhi when he lived in South Africa. I know nothing further, and it’s too late to find out now, like it is about so many things. But I would love to know the details, my grandfather was apparently quite something,, as I have indicated here when I have repeated the “England the whore” story.)
my thinking about these kinds of matters.
my thinking about these kinds of matters.
Don Fabrizio, Prince of Salina, is asked by his nephew, noble but relatively impoverished, to negotiate the nephew’s marriage to the daughter of the local mayor, Don Calogero, wealthy but plebeian.
First, the Prince questions his shooting companion about the mayor and his daughter – “though he had already decided to swallow the horrid toad, he still felt a need for more ample information about his adversary.”
Then he has his interview with the mayor. When he broaches the subject of the marriage, the major responds positively. “Don Fabrizio was overcome with sincere emotion; the toad had been swallowed; the chewed head and gizzards were going down his throat; he still had to crunch up the claws, but that was nothing compared to the rest; the worst was over.”
Finally the Prince has to discuss money – his nephew’s lack of it. “But, Don Calogero,” went on the Prince, chewing on the last gristly bits of toad, “…my nephew’s economic circumstances are not equal to the greatness of his name…” The last shreds of toad had been nastier than he had expected: but they had gone down too, in the end.
Don Fabrizio, Prince of Salina, is asked by his nephew, noble but relatively impoverished, to negotiate the nephew’s marriage to the daughter of the local mayor, Don Calogero, wealthy but plebeian.
First, the Prince questions his shooting companion about the mayor and his daughter – “though he had already decided to swallow the horrid toad, he still felt a need for more ample information about his adversary.”
Then he has his interview with the mayor. When he broaches the subject of the marriage, the major responds positively. “Don Fabrizio was overcome with sincere emotion; the toad had been swallowed; the chewed head and gizzards were going down his throat; he still had to crunch up the claws, but that was nothing compared to the rest; the worst was over.”
Finally the Prince has to discuss money – his nephew’s lack of it. “But, Don Calogero,” went on the Prince, chewing on the last gristly bits of toad, “…my nephew’s economic circumstances are not equal to the greatness of his name…” The last shreds of toad had been nastier than he had expected: but they had gone down too, in the end.
I also do wish that less of our imagery and metaphorical framing of life was in terms of fighting. I think it’s limiting, to say the very least.
With this, I can agree. When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail. Whether it’s the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun violence, the war on human trafficking, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, on and on. Often these wars are on symptoms, not the problems.
I also do wish that less of our imagery and metaphorical framing of life was in terms of fighting. I think it’s limiting, to say the very least.
With this, I can agree. When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail. Whether it’s the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun violence, the war on human trafficking, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, on and on. Often these wars are on symptoms, not the problems.
I also do wish that less of our imagery and metaphorical framing of life was in terms of fighting.
Gotta say, I find the battle imagery less noxious than imagining chewing up frogs and toads whole. (Even worse if still alive!) No accounting for taste, I guess.
I also do wish that less of our imagery and metaphorical framing of life was in terms of fighting.
Gotta say, I find the battle imagery less noxious than imagining chewing up frogs and toads whole. (Even worse if still alive!) No accounting for taste, I guess.
Gandhi is an interesting case. He clearly preferred non-violent means, for both practical and moral reasons. But he also thought violence was justifiable, when it was necessary for self-defense.
Even MLK carried a gun.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain, not the Soviet Union or some other totalitarian state.
Many of the black civil rights protestors had guns. The idea was to be able to live through the night so that you could engage in non-violent protest the next day.
Gandhi is an interesting case. He clearly preferred non-violent means, for both practical and moral reasons. But he also thought violence was justifiable, when it was necessary for self-defense.
Even MLK carried a gun.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain, not the Soviet Union or some other totalitarian state.
Many of the black civil rights protestors had guns. The idea was to be able to live through the night so that you could engage in non-violent protest the next day.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain
I think he was aware of that. Had he been up against, for example, Hitler, chances are he would not have taken a non-violent path.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain
I think he was aware of that. Had he been up against, for example, Hitler, chances are he would not have taken a non-violent path.
The real line in the sand is: are you willing to die for what you believe.
I think the real line in the sand should be: are you willing to kill for what you believe?
Fun fact: Eisenhower’s mother was a life-long pacifist.
The real line in the sand is: are you willing to die for what you believe.
I think the real line in the sand should be: are you willing to kill for what you believe?
Fun fact: Eisenhower’s mother was a life-long pacifist.
Britain has a long history of letting its colonies go their own way if they kick up enough. But Gandhi espoused non-violence in South Africa also.
Britain has a long history of letting its colonies go their own way if they kick up enough. But Gandhi espoused non-violence in South Africa also.
With this, I can agree. When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail. Whether it’s the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun violence, the war on human trafficking, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, on and on. Often these wars are on symptoms, not the problems.
Agree with this from a rhetorical standpoint. The metaphor has a contingent effect on attitude and approach.
On the other hand, I think that the shift from the “War Department” to the “Department of Defense” helped in its own way to leave us with no peacetime left, which then transforms those other metaphors into forever wars with no victory conditions.
And it’s really hard to resist thinking in terms of conflict and contest when there is a tradition of these sorts of metaphors baked into Western rhetoric since the Ancient Greeks and we have long favored persuasion over deliberation and empathic listening.
I think that (the reception, at least, of) Machiavelli and Clausewitz also had some effect on shifting political thinking towards models of conflict and contest.
With this, I can agree. When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail. Whether it’s the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun violence, the war on human trafficking, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, on and on. Often these wars are on symptoms, not the problems.
Agree with this from a rhetorical standpoint. The metaphor has a contingent effect on attitude and approach.
On the other hand, I think that the shift from the “War Department” to the “Department of Defense” helped in its own way to leave us with no peacetime left, which then transforms those other metaphors into forever wars with no victory conditions.
And it’s really hard to resist thinking in terms of conflict and contest when there is a tradition of these sorts of metaphors baked into Western rhetoric since the Ancient Greeks and we have long favored persuasion over deliberation and empathic listening.
I think that (the reception, at least, of) Machiavelli and Clausewitz also had some effect on shifting political thinking towards models of conflict and contest.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain, not the Soviet Union
…
I think he was aware of that.
He definitely was. And said so publicly. (Can’t lay my finger on the quote just now. Sorry.)
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain, not the Soviet Union
…
I think he was aware of that.
He definitely was. And said so publicly. (Can’t lay my finger on the quote just now. Sorry.)
When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail. Whether it’s the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun violence, the war on human trafficking, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, on and on.
Although I do recall hearing calls for a “vaccine” against several of those. Usually in the metaphoric sense. But once or twice meant literally. So, a medical analogy.
When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail. Whether it’s the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun violence, the war on human trafficking, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, on and on.
Although I do recall hearing calls for a “vaccine” against several of those. Usually in the metaphoric sense. But once or twice meant literally. So, a medical analogy.
“war on X” is just easier to say and understand than “assorted policies of various efficacy collectively intended to eliminate X within a reasonable amount of time, budget permitting”
“war on X” is just easier to say and understand than “assorted policies of various efficacy collectively intended to eliminate X within a reasonable amount of time, budget permitting”
Had he been up against, for example, Hitler, chances are he would not have taken a non-violent path.
Gandhi repeatedly recommended non-violence to Jews in Nazi Germany.
Had he been up against, for example, Hitler, chances are he would not have taken a non-violent path.
Gandhi repeatedly recommended non-violence to Jews in Nazi Germany.
When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail.
Yes, that tendency often has me resist always turning to libertarian solutions…
When you have a hammer everything becomes a nail.
Yes, that tendency often has me resist always turning to libertarian solutions…
But libertarians prefer jeweler’s hammers used by individuals rather than jackhammers used by the government…
But libertarians prefer jeweler’s hammers used by individuals rather than jackhammers used by the government…
libertarians prefer jeweler’s hammers used by individuals rather than jackhammers used by the government..
And are prepared to use jackhammers to get the rest of us to share their preferences. Which wouldn’t be so irritating, if every attempt at coercion wasn’t accompanied by loud auto-praises for their virtue . . . in opposing coercion by others.
libertarians prefer jeweler’s hammers used by individuals rather than jackhammers used by the government..
And are prepared to use jackhammers to get the rest of us to share their preferences. Which wouldn’t be so irritating, if every attempt at coercion wasn’t accompanied by loud auto-praises for their virtue . . . in opposing coercion by others.
When and how have libertarians tried to use coercion for any reason?
When and how have libertarians tried to use coercion for any reason?
https://modeledbehavior.wordpress.com/tag/robert-nozick/
https://modeledbehavior.wordpress.com/tag/robert-nozick/
Gandhi repeatedly recommended non-violence to Jews in Nazi Germany.
I stand corrected. Probably a bad call, on his part. My opinion, obviously.
But libertarians prefer jeweler’s hammers used by individuals rather than jackhammers used by the government
all good, if what you’re hammering is jewels.
When and how have libertarians tried to use coercion for any reason?
They don’t have to. Most of them live in societies with governments, which handle that for them.
Or, what lj said.
Gandhi repeatedly recommended non-violence to Jews in Nazi Germany.
I stand corrected. Probably a bad call, on his part. My opinion, obviously.
But libertarians prefer jeweler’s hammers used by individuals rather than jackhammers used by the government
all good, if what you’re hammering is jewels.
When and how have libertarians tried to use coercion for any reason?
They don’t have to. Most of them live in societies with governments, which handle that for them.
Or, what lj said.
My opinion, obviously.
Not just yours.
My opinion, obviously.
Not just yours.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain, not the Soviet Union or some other totalitarian state.
The Soviet Union – and most of the Warsaw pact regimes – wasn’t brought down by violence but by economical collapse.
Gandhi repeatedly recommended non-violence to Jews in Nazi Germany.
I stand corrected. Probably a bad call, on his part.
Violent Jewish opposition to the Nazi regime was quite rare and of some symbolic value – which is not to be underestimated – but also ineffective and counter-productive.
There is no reason to assume that violent resistance was superior to non-violent resistance.
Gandhi’s luck was that he was resisting Britain, not the Soviet Union or some other totalitarian state.
The Soviet Union – and most of the Warsaw pact regimes – wasn’t brought down by violence but by economical collapse.
Gandhi repeatedly recommended non-violence to Jews in Nazi Germany.
I stand corrected. Probably a bad call, on his part.
Violent Jewish opposition to the Nazi regime was quite rare and of some symbolic value – which is not to be underestimated – but also ineffective and counter-productive.
There is no reason to assume that violent resistance was superior to non-violent resistance.
Violent Jewish opposition to the Nazi regime was quite rare and of some symbolic value – which is not to be underestimated – but also ineffective and counter-productive.
Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of the European Jews, argued that a component of the Holocaust was the Jewish acceptance/acquiescence to pograms which contributed to a paralysis when confronted by the Holocaust. Obviously, this is one of the reasons why Hilberg’s book received some pushback, because some took it as Jews carried some blame for what befell them. But some of the examples of how Jewish communities would simply weather the killings and attacks because of the belief that regardless what happened, the community would survive. While one could pose the counterfactual of organized Jewish resistance to the Holocaust, it would have gone against 2000+ years of cultural training.
Violent Jewish opposition to the Nazi regime was quite rare and of some symbolic value – which is not to be underestimated – but also ineffective and counter-productive.
Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of the European Jews, argued that a component of the Holocaust was the Jewish acceptance/acquiescence to pograms which contributed to a paralysis when confronted by the Holocaust. Obviously, this is one of the reasons why Hilberg’s book received some pushback, because some took it as Jews carried some blame for what befell them. But some of the examples of how Jewish communities would simply weather the killings and attacks because of the belief that regardless what happened, the community would survive. While one could pose the counterfactual of organized Jewish resistance to the Holocaust, it would have gone against 2000+ years of cultural training.
When and how have libertarians tried to use coercion for any reason?
contracts are enforced in Libertyville, yes ?
When and how have libertarians tried to use coercion for any reason?
contracts are enforced in Libertyville, yes ?
As indeed are property rights.
As indeed are property rights.
here’s some Democratic messaging i can get behind:
here’s some Democratic messaging i can get behind:
ineffective and counter-productive.
I’m not sure how to make sense of this. With no wish or intent to second-guess the actions of Jewish people in Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s, I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
ineffective and counter-productive.
I’m not sure how to make sense of this. With no wish or intent to second-guess the actions of Jewish people in Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s, I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
me, too. cf warsaw ghetto uprising.
I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
me, too. cf warsaw ghetto uprising.
russell, second guess away.
I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
Quite.
russell, second guess away.
I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
Quite.
“So please shut your seditious, Qanon loving mouth when it comes to who loves America.”
Very satisfying, cleek, I do agree. There’s a time and a place for civility, and talking to MTG when she calls the Dems “the enemy within” is not it.
“So please shut your seditious, Qanon loving mouth when it comes to who loves America.”
Very satisfying, cleek, I do agree. There’s a time and a place for civility, and talking to MTG when she calls the Dems “the enemy within” is not it.
I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
It certainly wouldn’t have made any difference to those who died.
And if the resistance had been effective enough (esp. if, say, the German left and other targeted groups had organized together in opposition before the Nazis even got off the ground), we might be looking at a very different world.
But there is maybe a little tickle of the fundamental anti-fascist paradox here: resist too early, or too vigorously and somehow you’re the bad guy.
Up to a point, the more prompt, organized and effective the resistance, the more it would just have handed the Nazis better propaganda weapons. After all, what would you have them do, surrender to the crazy antifa terrorists?
I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
It certainly wouldn’t have made any difference to those who died.
And if the resistance had been effective enough (esp. if, say, the German left and other targeted groups had organized together in opposition before the Nazis even got off the ground), we might be looking at a very different world.
But there is maybe a little tickle of the fundamental anti-fascist paradox here: resist too early, or too vigorously and somehow you’re the bad guy.
Up to a point, the more prompt, organized and effective the resistance, the more it would just have handed the Nazis better propaganda weapons. After all, what would you have them do, surrender to the crazy antifa terrorists?
resist too early, or too vigorously and somehow you’re the bad guy.
as soon as people can see into the future, this will no longer be a problem.
resist too early, or too vigorously and somehow you’re the bad guy.
as soon as people can see into the future, this will no longer be a problem.
On occasion in the Weimar republic the nazis and the communists joined forces against the real enemy: the social democrats. They also together had enough votes in parliament to block any effective government, although neither had a majority to govern (what the GOP does by using the filibuster).
The police was conservative far right and had in some cases direct orders to look the other way as far as streetfighting was concerned. And at least the nazis were open (Hitler personally kicked some SA thugs out of the party when they did not wear uniform during a ‘roughing-up’ operation). And the nazis had access to military gear through SA chied Ernst Röhm who was the main organizer of the military operation to hide weapons form the allied control commissions (bans on small arms possession by civilians were imposed by the allied powers through the German parliament).
In other words, the nazis were armed in advance and had support from both the armed forces and the police (and large parts of the state bureaucracy). They had no scruples to work together with other extremists (their official archenemies) against the democratic forces. Good luck countering something like that.
Once in power they were willing and able to crush any resistance (organised or not) and used any act of resistance as an excuse to escalate the violence further. Only the armed forces had a chance to successfully act. In 1938 Munich unknowingly sabotaged a military coup (it was called off since after Hitler’s unexpected success the conspirators assumed that it would make them look like the bad guys). Numerous small scale plots failed due to Hitler’s paranoia and serial bad luck [like failing fuses on bombs]).
It took the combined powers of the US, the Soviets and Britain* to put an end to the whole affair. Btw, historians assume that a successful plot would have prevented really weeding out nazism as a major force and would have created a new stab-in-the-back narrative instead. Even the total defeat in WW2 left enough old Nazis in public positions that it took decades to deal with them and their poisonous influence.
*about everyone else had to rely on their support, so I leave them out here.
On occasion in the Weimar republic the nazis and the communists joined forces against the real enemy: the social democrats. They also together had enough votes in parliament to block any effective government, although neither had a majority to govern (what the GOP does by using the filibuster).
The police was conservative far right and had in some cases direct orders to look the other way as far as streetfighting was concerned. And at least the nazis were open (Hitler personally kicked some SA thugs out of the party when they did not wear uniform during a ‘roughing-up’ operation). And the nazis had access to military gear through SA chied Ernst Röhm who was the main organizer of the military operation to hide weapons form the allied control commissions (bans on small arms possession by civilians were imposed by the allied powers through the German parliament).
In other words, the nazis were armed in advance and had support from both the armed forces and the police (and large parts of the state bureaucracy). They had no scruples to work together with other extremists (their official archenemies) against the democratic forces. Good luck countering something like that.
Once in power they were willing and able to crush any resistance (organised or not) and used any act of resistance as an excuse to escalate the violence further. Only the armed forces had a chance to successfully act. In 1938 Munich unknowingly sabotaged a military coup (it was called off since after Hitler’s unexpected success the conspirators assumed that it would make them look like the bad guys). Numerous small scale plots failed due to Hitler’s paranoia and serial bad luck [like failing fuses on bombs]).
It took the combined powers of the US, the Soviets and Britain* to put an end to the whole affair. Btw, historians assume that a successful plot would have prevented really weeding out nazism as a major force and would have created a new stab-in-the-back narrative instead. Even the total defeat in WW2 left enough old Nazis in public positions that it took decades to deal with them and their poisonous influence.
*about everyone else had to rely on their support, so I leave them out here.
as soon as people can see into the future, this will no longer be a problem.
Some people already can.
At least to the degree that I don’t think anyone needed actual psychic powers to work out where the brownshirts and the organizers of the Beer Hall Putsch were going to be taking things if left unchecked.
as soon as people can see into the future, this will no longer be a problem.
Some people already can.
At least to the degree that I don’t think anyone needed actual psychic powers to work out where the brownshirts and the organizers of the Beer Hall Putsch were going to be taking things if left unchecked.
But at the time the central figure seemed to be Ludendorff, the de facto military dictator after the Verdun disaster, not that little Austrian loudmouth. Ludendorff suffered even less consequences than Hitler (who got Festungshaft, a kind of imprisonment reserved for persons of honor, i.e. guys who had violated the law for honorable reasons).
It was assumed that this would put an end to his specific political movement, which was just a bit too vulgar and plebeian for the elite’s taste (while many of its goals were seen as desirable).
But at the time the central figure seemed to be Ludendorff, the de facto military dictator after the Verdun disaster, not that little Austrian loudmouth. Ludendorff suffered even less consequences than Hitler (who got Festungshaft, a kind of imprisonment reserved for persons of honor, i.e. guys who had violated the law for honorable reasons).
It was assumed that this would put an end to his specific political movement, which was just a bit too vulgar and plebeian for the elite’s taste (while many of its goals were seen as desirable).
resist too early, or too vigorously and somehow you’re the bad guy.
…
as soon as people can see into the future, this will no longer be a problem.
On the evidence of America today, there are a substantial number of people who will simply refuse to see. Even when it’s smacking them in the nose at close range. Not can’t see, but won’t see.
We poke fun at stories of people insisting that “covid is a hoax” even as it kills them. But they aren’t as rare, especially in marginally weaker forms, as we would like to think. Suggests to me that the day it ceases to be a problem isn’t close.
resist too early, or too vigorously and somehow you’re the bad guy.
…
as soon as people can see into the future, this will no longer be a problem.
On the evidence of America today, there are a substantial number of people who will simply refuse to see. Even when it’s smacking them in the nose at close range. Not can’t see, but won’t see.
We poke fun at stories of people insisting that “covid is a hoax” even as it kills them. But they aren’t as rare, especially in marginally weaker forms, as we would like to think. Suggests to me that the day it ceases to be a problem isn’t close.
Thus, from the resident optimist. (Maybe I’m just having a bad morning…?)
Thus, from the resident optimist. (Maybe I’m just having a bad morning…?)
But at the time the central figure seemed to be Ludendorff, the de facto military dictator after the Verdun disaster, not that little Austrian loudmouth.
Which may well have been true, at the time. It’s not as if there was only one problematic figure in the era. Counterfactual fantasies are just that, but one can imagine that even in a world where a certain loud Austrian had been accidentally run down by a tram or something in the early 20s, a Ludendorff (or Röhm or Göring or…) might just have ended up in his place, taking things in a perhaps technically different, yet not altogether better direction.
They all needed to be countered.
(while many of its goals were seen as desirable).
That’s probably the heart of the issue. Even if everyone could have seen into the future, there are many who’d be convinced only to redouble their efforts or adjust their tactics. Not reconsider their goals.
But at the time the central figure seemed to be Ludendorff, the de facto military dictator after the Verdun disaster, not that little Austrian loudmouth.
Which may well have been true, at the time. It’s not as if there was only one problematic figure in the era. Counterfactual fantasies are just that, but one can imagine that even in a world where a certain loud Austrian had been accidentally run down by a tram or something in the early 20s, a Ludendorff (or Röhm or Göring or…) might just have ended up in his place, taking things in a perhaps technically different, yet not altogether better direction.
They all needed to be countered.
(while many of its goals were seen as desirable).
That’s probably the heart of the issue. Even if everyone could have seen into the future, there are many who’d be convinced only to redouble their efforts or adjust their tactics. Not reconsider their goals.
And it’s really hard to resist thinking in terms of conflict and contest when there is a tradition of these sorts of metaphors baked into Western rhetoric since the Ancient Greeks and we have long favored persuasion over deliberation and empathic listening.
By the way, I meant to say earlier that I found this a very interesting comment, nous. It made me realise how ignorant I was of any actual ancient or other human cultures (which is to say, not sci-fi thought experiments) which did not have these sorts of concepts baked in. Can you give any examples? (Of course, as we all know, history is written by the victors…)
Not that sci-fi thought experiments are valueless, of course, I do see how having the concept could help one grope towards it IRL.
And it’s really hard to resist thinking in terms of conflict and contest when there is a tradition of these sorts of metaphors baked into Western rhetoric since the Ancient Greeks and we have long favored persuasion over deliberation and empathic listening.
By the way, I meant to say earlier that I found this a very interesting comment, nous. It made me realise how ignorant I was of any actual ancient or other human cultures (which is to say, not sci-fi thought experiments) which did not have these sorts of concepts baked in. Can you give any examples? (Of course, as we all know, history is written by the victors…)
Not that sci-fi thought experiments are valueless, of course, I do see how having the concept could help one grope towards it IRL.
(Maybe I’m just having a bad morning…?)
No, it’s not you. The times are out of joint.
(Maybe I’m just having a bad morning…?)
No, it’s not you. The times are out of joint.
And, for some, the joints are out time…
And, for some, the joints are out time…
It made me realise how ignorant I was of any actual ancient or other human cultures (which is to say, not sci-fi thought experiments) which did not have these sorts of concepts baked in.
Good question.
It made me realise how ignorant I was of any actual ancient or other human cultures (which is to say, not sci-fi thought experiments) which did not have these sorts of concepts baked in.
Good question.
With no wish or intent to second-guess the actions of Jewish people in Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s, I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand – of course any type of armed opposition would have put people more at risk of detection and reprisals than they already were and minimized their chances of survival. That’s why most people didn’t do it.
And while I’m sure you don’t have any ill will, I find these type of arguments not very sensitive to the people who had to endure these times. As lj mentioned it led to the supposition in some quarters that they were cowards. I find it a bit rich for us to romanticize armed resistance, assuming most of us have little first hand experience with truly life threatening situations and real violence.
With no wish or intent to second-guess the actions of Jewish people in Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s, I’m at a loss to see how resistance would have made their situation worse.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand – of course any type of armed opposition would have put people more at risk of detection and reprisals than they already were and minimized their chances of survival. That’s why most people didn’t do it.
And while I’m sure you don’t have any ill will, I find these type of arguments not very sensitive to the people who had to endure these times. As lj mentioned it led to the supposition in some quarters that they were cowards. I find it a bit rich for us to romanticize armed resistance, assuming most of us have little first hand experience with truly life threatening situations and real violence.
In other words, the nazis were armed in advance and had support from both the armed forces and the police (and large parts of the state bureaucracy). They had no scruples to work together with other extremists (their official archenemies) against the democratic forces. Good luck countering something like that.
A playbook American fascists are following, step by step. They’ve taken over the GOP, they’ve infiltrated the military and police, and they have no scruples using splinter groups like the Green Party to split the opposition in elections.
In other words, the nazis were armed in advance and had support from both the armed forces and the police (and large parts of the state bureaucracy). They had no scruples to work together with other extremists (their official archenemies) against the democratic forces. Good luck countering something like that.
A playbook American fascists are following, step by step. They’ve taken over the GOP, they’ve infiltrated the military and police, and they have no scruples using splinter groups like the Green Party to split the opposition in elections.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand – of course any type of armed opposition would have put people more at risk of detection and reprisals than they already were and minimized their chances of survival. That’s why most people didn’t do it.
Well, there was some Jewish resistance, e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The submission to authority–any authority–phenomena is not unique to the Jews in Germany and Europe. There was no organized, armed resistance in the USSR to mass murder/gulags/etc. Ditto the PRC where invasion/murder/labor camps/genocide are matters of state policy. Also, N Korea. To a lesser extent, Cuba and Venezuela. Iran and Saudi Arabia have their own flavor.
It’s the nature of dictatorships, which are a byproduct of ideology and not limited to any one ideology.
If the option is death by poisonous gas and you knew that was your fate, taking some bad guys with you makes sense. But, human nature being what it is, denial in the face of harsh reality was and is hardly unique. How many Jews got on trains believing they were going to be killed?
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand – of course any type of armed opposition would have put people more at risk of detection and reprisals than they already were and minimized their chances of survival. That’s why most people didn’t do it.
Well, there was some Jewish resistance, e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The submission to authority–any authority–phenomena is not unique to the Jews in Germany and Europe. There was no organized, armed resistance in the USSR to mass murder/gulags/etc. Ditto the PRC where invasion/murder/labor camps/genocide are matters of state policy. Also, N Korea. To a lesser extent, Cuba and Venezuela. Iran and Saudi Arabia have their own flavor.
It’s the nature of dictatorships, which are a byproduct of ideology and not limited to any one ideology.
If the option is death by poisonous gas and you knew that was your fate, taking some bad guys with you makes sense. But, human nature being what it is, denial in the face of harsh reality was and is hardly unique. How many Jews got on trains believing they were going to be killed?
There is often discussion that a matriarchal society would embody different modes of discussion and debate. I’m not familiar with the anthropological literature, but the Hopi are often cited as a matriarchy, though you get into arguments about what exactly is a matriarchy is and what it entails. Older debates about women being closer to nature and men being technologically adept is pretty much baked into our cultural understanding I’d argue, which is why articles like these often appear
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/02/viking-woman-warrior-face-reconstruction-national-geographic-documentary
George Lakoff, who was one of the founders of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, used the frame of argument as war as key evidence for the use of metaphor to shape our thoughts. In his early work, he suggested that we are not tied to this metaphor, we could just as easily have argument as a dance, but that seemed to give critics a foothold in arguing that metaphor theory was just anything you want it to be, so it no longer appears. CMT has been pretty well accepted in cognitive linguistics, (here’s an article describing the aspect we are discussing here
http://web.pdx.edu/~cgrd/MultipleMeanings.htm
I tend to think, not with my hat of an academic who does metaphor but my more usual hat of a freshman in the dorm doing late night debates, that the frame of fighting and conflict as being any sort of interaction reflects a male-dominated society where child raising roles are primarily feminine. That’s why Sheryl Sandberg feels she has to ‘lean in’. Of course, if you start pointing out the examples, they multiply until the argument is ‘if it were really true, don’t you think other people would have noticed it’. But it is surprising what people can fail to notice. And how easy it is to be defensive when it is pointed out to them. I should have realized that Janie and my point revolved around how we viewed ‘fighting’, but the discussion itself was too engrossing.
There is often discussion that a matriarchal society would embody different modes of discussion and debate. I’m not familiar with the anthropological literature, but the Hopi are often cited as a matriarchy, though you get into arguments about what exactly is a matriarchy is and what it entails. Older debates about women being closer to nature and men being technologically adept is pretty much baked into our cultural understanding I’d argue, which is why articles like these often appear
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/02/viking-woman-warrior-face-reconstruction-national-geographic-documentary
George Lakoff, who was one of the founders of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, used the frame of argument as war as key evidence for the use of metaphor to shape our thoughts. In his early work, he suggested that we are not tied to this metaphor, we could just as easily have argument as a dance, but that seemed to give critics a foothold in arguing that metaphor theory was just anything you want it to be, so it no longer appears. CMT has been pretty well accepted in cognitive linguistics, (here’s an article describing the aspect we are discussing here
http://web.pdx.edu/~cgrd/MultipleMeanings.htm
I tend to think, not with my hat of an academic who does metaphor but my more usual hat of a freshman in the dorm doing late night debates, that the frame of fighting and conflict as being any sort of interaction reflects a male-dominated society where child raising roles are primarily feminine. That’s why Sheryl Sandberg feels she has to ‘lean in’. Of course, if you start pointing out the examples, they multiply until the argument is ‘if it were really true, don’t you think other people would have noticed it’. But it is surprising what people can fail to notice. And how easy it is to be defensive when it is pointed out to them. I should have realized that Janie and my point revolved around how we viewed ‘fighting’, but the discussion itself was too engrossing.
Barbara Tuchman, in her “The Guns of August”, describes the village of Onhaye that is above the Belgian city of Dinant.
Dinant straddles the Meuse river, Onhaye is on a high bluff overlooking Dinant.
In their graveyard, there are numerous markers with “Fusillé a la Boche”
Dated around 1914. And again in the 1940s.
(I’ve been through Onhaye many times, so the description stuck with me.)
Resistance can have a high price; it’s not even clear that (in this case) there was significant resistance.
Barbara Tuchman, in her “The Guns of August”, describes the village of Onhaye that is above the Belgian city of Dinant.
Dinant straddles the Meuse river, Onhaye is on a high bluff overlooking Dinant.
In their graveyard, there are numerous markers with “Fusillé a la Boche”
Dated around 1914. And again in the 1940s.
(I’ve been through Onhaye many times, so the description stuck with me.)
Resistance can have a high price; it’s not even clear that (in this case) there was significant resistance.
we could just as easily have argument as a dance
Decades ago, I did some teaching of a martial art. (Medieval European broadsword fighting, if you care.) The first three women students of mine that got really good had totally different approaches to fighting.
Hilary did, indeed, treat it as a dance. Anyone who assumed that it would make her a pushover got their head handed to them. It was just that she wasn’t consumed with interest in who actually won a fight, she just wanted it to be done well.
Carol, in contrast, just really, really liked to fight. And Mary . . . basically liked to kill people. (The sport gave her a socially acceptable outlet for some issues.)
Still, anyone who thinks women wouldn’t compete, and compete hard, if they were in charge probably needs to get out more. Perhaps not more physical fights, but every bit as many in other arenas. I think it’s part of being human. Who knows why.
we could just as easily have argument as a dance
Decades ago, I did some teaching of a martial art. (Medieval European broadsword fighting, if you care.) The first three women students of mine that got really good had totally different approaches to fighting.
Hilary did, indeed, treat it as a dance. Anyone who assumed that it would make her a pushover got their head handed to them. It was just that she wasn’t consumed with interest in who actually won a fight, she just wanted it to be done well.
Carol, in contrast, just really, really liked to fight. And Mary . . . basically liked to kill people. (The sport gave her a socially acceptable outlet for some issues.)
Still, anyone who thinks women wouldn’t compete, and compete hard, if they were in charge probably needs to get out more. Perhaps not more physical fights, but every bit as many in other arenas. I think it’s part of being human. Who knows why.
It made me realise how ignorant I was of any actual ancient or other human cultures (which is to say, not sci-fi thought experiments) which did not have these sorts of concepts baked in. Can you give any examples? (Of course, as we all know, history is written by the victors…)
Been meaning to get to this all day, but I had four hours of paper conferences preventing that.
I don’t know that I can present any examples of a culture for which that militaristic metaphor of public discourse is absent. Mostly I was thinking about what sorts of, yes lj, conceptual metaphors are primary. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch for me to say that most people of European cultural background (and many others as well) see rhetoric and writing as a way of changing other people’s minds through the power of one’s insight, logic, and communicative prowess. That’s certainly the view of most of my students.
Few people think of public discourse as an exchange of words and ideas that allows one to find other ways of seeing and experiencing a problem to gain insight and a more productive, consensual understanding of a shared social world, even though those things also get articulated and have been a part of rhetoric since before Aristotle. We seek to move others to our position through strength or to resist the imposition of another’s position on us. Rarely do we go in seeking to be moved and to revise our own cognitive footing.
I think we do get some places where we see such dynamics come to the fore – mostly in collective societies and intentional communities – but these societies are usually small and somewhat homogeneous.
Even though I wasn’t suggesting the existence of a culture for which a dominance model was not the primary mode of public discourse, I did find this piece from New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/
These small-scale, nomadic foraging groups didn’t stock up much surplus food, and given the high-risk nature of hunting – the fact that on any given day or week you may come back empty-handed – sharing and cooperation were required to ensure everyone got enough to eat. Anyone who made a bid for higher status or attempted to take more than their share would be ridiculed or ostracised for their audacity. Suppressing our primate ancestors’ dominance hierarchies by enforcing these egalitarian norms was a central adaptation of human evolution, argues social anthropologist Christopher Boehm. It enhanced cooperation and lowered risk as small, isolated bands of humans spread into new habitats and regions across the world, and was likely crucial to our survival and success.
The surprise twist on the argument there is that “inequality did not spread from group to group because it is an inherently better system for survival, but because it creates demographic instability, which drives migration and conflict and leads to the cultural – or physical – extinction of egalitarian societies.”
Not a comforting thought when we start to think that we have now reached a scale where migration does not relieve pressures any longer. We can’t get away from each other or from competition for needed resources, so we’d best learn to cooperate and share and spread the wealth around. That means learning to listen for need and to put ourselves in the shoes of another.
It made me realise how ignorant I was of any actual ancient or other human cultures (which is to say, not sci-fi thought experiments) which did not have these sorts of concepts baked in. Can you give any examples? (Of course, as we all know, history is written by the victors…)
Been meaning to get to this all day, but I had four hours of paper conferences preventing that.
I don’t know that I can present any examples of a culture for which that militaristic metaphor of public discourse is absent. Mostly I was thinking about what sorts of, yes lj, conceptual metaphors are primary. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch for me to say that most people of European cultural background (and many others as well) see rhetoric and writing as a way of changing other people’s minds through the power of one’s insight, logic, and communicative prowess. That’s certainly the view of most of my students.
Few people think of public discourse as an exchange of words and ideas that allows one to find other ways of seeing and experiencing a problem to gain insight and a more productive, consensual understanding of a shared social world, even though those things also get articulated and have been a part of rhetoric since before Aristotle. We seek to move others to our position through strength or to resist the imposition of another’s position on us. Rarely do we go in seeking to be moved and to revise our own cognitive footing.
I think we do get some places where we see such dynamics come to the fore – mostly in collective societies and intentional communities – but these societies are usually small and somewhat homogeneous.
Even though I wasn’t suggesting the existence of a culture for which a dominance model was not the primary mode of public discourse, I did find this piece from New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/
These small-scale, nomadic foraging groups didn’t stock up much surplus food, and given the high-risk nature of hunting – the fact that on any given day or week you may come back empty-handed – sharing and cooperation were required to ensure everyone got enough to eat. Anyone who made a bid for higher status or attempted to take more than their share would be ridiculed or ostracised for their audacity. Suppressing our primate ancestors’ dominance hierarchies by enforcing these egalitarian norms was a central adaptation of human evolution, argues social anthropologist Christopher Boehm. It enhanced cooperation and lowered risk as small, isolated bands of humans spread into new habitats and regions across the world, and was likely crucial to our survival and success.
The surprise twist on the argument there is that “inequality did not spread from group to group because it is an inherently better system for survival, but because it creates demographic instability, which drives migration and conflict and leads to the cultural – or physical – extinction of egalitarian societies.”
Not a comforting thought when we start to think that we have now reached a scale where migration does not relieve pressures any longer. We can’t get away from each other or from competition for needed resources, so we’d best learn to cooperate and share and spread the wealth around. That means learning to listen for need and to put ourselves in the shoes of another.
nous, thank you very much for what looks at first speed-read a very interesting answer. I’d like to read it properly, and digest it, before asking or replying anything more, but as luck would now have it I’m going to have to be out of circulation for the next 15-20 hours. Will revert after that, but thanks again.
nous, thank you very much for what looks at first speed-read a very interesting answer. I’d like to read it properly, and digest it, before asking or replying anything more, but as luck would now have it I’m going to have to be out of circulation for the next 15-20 hours. Will revert after that, but thanks again.
Still, anyone who thinks women wouldn’t compete, and compete hard, if they were in charge probably needs to get out more.
This is probably the first place where the discussion can go off the rails. Saying that the more aggressive mode is inherent in the male and the more cooperative is for the female doesn’t preclude, except by cultural conditioning, the opposite side from taking it on. It wouldn’t be hard (unless you are Jordan Peterson) from imagining a society where the women give birth, hand the baby off to a waiting male and get on with the business of doing stuff to keep society running. Plenty of examples of women handing children off to wet-nurses after birth.
However, people tend to imagine that correlation is causation, so you inevitably get the thinking that traits that males always do are traits that are unavailable to females.
I recall (and this is from my own memory, so I may be exaggerating) a discussion here where someone observed that he was surprised I was a man cause I argued like a woman. I said thanks, I try and he was pretty horrified that I thought that was a good thing. I don’t raise this to claim any kind of evolution on my part, I think that ideally, if you have as many modes of interaction available to you, you are going to do a lot better than if you only have one, but if you are going to think that one or the other is dependent on your plumbing, you are going to have even more problems.
Still, anyone who thinks women wouldn’t compete, and compete hard, if they were in charge probably needs to get out more.
This is probably the first place where the discussion can go off the rails. Saying that the more aggressive mode is inherent in the male and the more cooperative is for the female doesn’t preclude, except by cultural conditioning, the opposite side from taking it on. It wouldn’t be hard (unless you are Jordan Peterson) from imagining a society where the women give birth, hand the baby off to a waiting male and get on with the business of doing stuff to keep society running. Plenty of examples of women handing children off to wet-nurses after birth.
However, people tend to imagine that correlation is causation, so you inevitably get the thinking that traits that males always do are traits that are unavailable to females.
I recall (and this is from my own memory, so I may be exaggerating) a discussion here where someone observed that he was surprised I was a man cause I argued like a woman. I said thanks, I try and he was pretty horrified that I thought that was a good thing. I don’t raise this to claim any kind of evolution on my part, I think that ideally, if you have as many modes of interaction available to you, you are going to do a lot better than if you only have one, but if you are going to think that one or the other is dependent on your plumbing, you are going to have even more problems.
Mostly I was thinking about what sorts of, yes lj, conceptual metaphors are primary.
a quick comment by me and back to the salt mines. My main subject is to teach Japanese students how to write in English. While a lot of that is grammar and vocabulary, there is also a very interesting challenge of telling students that something is grammatically fine, but is simply not used. For example, lots of Japanese essays start out with a question of the form xx gozonji desu ka? (the gozonji is the honorific form so you are essentially raising up the listener, which is why you get Charlie Chan saying things like ‘Honorable xxx’) I have to explain to students that using a question at the beginning in an English essay brings to mind a kindergarten teacher asking a display question. ‘And Johnny, what did you bring to show and tell today?’ (asked while Johnny is holding his model tank)
One remarkably difficult thing to get across is to get students to not use hesitations and softeners when making statements. “The scene shows how the writer sees the conflict, I think” A lot of academic writing is setting up a argument and you want to make your ‘facts’ non-negotiable. So this mode of discussion is really part and parcel of Western culture, which I, like nous, assume to have started with the Greeks.
Mostly I was thinking about what sorts of, yes lj, conceptual metaphors are primary.
a quick comment by me and back to the salt mines. My main subject is to teach Japanese students how to write in English. While a lot of that is grammar and vocabulary, there is also a very interesting challenge of telling students that something is grammatically fine, but is simply not used. For example, lots of Japanese essays start out with a question of the form xx gozonji desu ka? (the gozonji is the honorific form so you are essentially raising up the listener, which is why you get Charlie Chan saying things like ‘Honorable xxx’) I have to explain to students that using a question at the beginning in an English essay brings to mind a kindergarten teacher asking a display question. ‘And Johnny, what did you bring to show and tell today?’ (asked while Johnny is holding his model tank)
One remarkably difficult thing to get across is to get students to not use hesitations and softeners when making statements. “The scene shows how the writer sees the conflict, I think” A lot of academic writing is setting up a argument and you want to make your ‘facts’ non-negotiable. So this mode of discussion is really part and parcel of Western culture, which I, like nous, assume to have started with the Greeks.
Western culture, which I, like nous, assume to have started with the Greeks.
The Greeks are the oldest culture whose writings we never lost the ability to read. But the roots of Western culture go much further back. To Sumer that we know of (because we can once again read their writings). See, for a classic (mid last century) example, History Begins at Sumer.
Western culture, which I, like nous, assume to have started with the Greeks.
The Greeks are the oldest culture whose writings we never lost the ability to read. But the roots of Western culture go much further back. To Sumer that we know of (because we can once again read their writings). See, for a classic (mid last century) example, History Begins at Sumer.
The Greeks are the oldest culture whose writings we never lost the ability to read. But the roots of Western culture go much further back.
Yes. In history circles they talk about “the archive” and about “traces.” I do not assume that rhetoric began with Aristotle, merely that Aristotle and Plato are the oldest extant sources that we have that discuss the topic in any sustained, systematic way.
I also associate these modes of discourse with the Ancient Greeks because so much of what did get preserved and passed on as intellectual tradition is militaristic in tone. Just look at the recorded speeches attributed to Pericles and such in The History of the Peloponnesian Wars. It’s difficult to extract intellectual life in the polis from the concept of military service as the defining feature of membership in the polis.
It’s one of the ironies of history that these texts were, for a time, lost and the intellectual traditions neglected until reintroduced by contact with Islamic scholars, whereupon Christendom took these texts and defined for themselves a neo-classical tradition rooted in defining themselves *against* the Islamic scholars who gave them back these texts.
I really wish that The Archive contained more of the works of the Sophists. What we have is just enough to imply that Plato and his proteges were not providing reliable testimony about their rivals.
The Greeks are the oldest culture whose writings we never lost the ability to read. But the roots of Western culture go much further back.
Yes. In history circles they talk about “the archive” and about “traces.” I do not assume that rhetoric began with Aristotle, merely that Aristotle and Plato are the oldest extant sources that we have that discuss the topic in any sustained, systematic way.
I also associate these modes of discourse with the Ancient Greeks because so much of what did get preserved and passed on as intellectual tradition is militaristic in tone. Just look at the recorded speeches attributed to Pericles and such in The History of the Peloponnesian Wars. It’s difficult to extract intellectual life in the polis from the concept of military service as the defining feature of membership in the polis.
It’s one of the ironies of history that these texts were, for a time, lost and the intellectual traditions neglected until reintroduced by contact with Islamic scholars, whereupon Christendom took these texts and defined for themselves a neo-classical tradition rooted in defining themselves *against* the Islamic scholars who gave them back these texts.
I really wish that The Archive contained more of the works of the Sophists. What we have is just enough to imply that Plato and his proteges were not providing reliable testimony about their rivals.
nous, I’ve been catching up on the Pre-Socratics in recent months (see Philosophy Before Socrates, McKirnan; The First Philosophers, Oxford World’s Classics, and the much more readable “The Dream of Reason” by Anthony Gottlieb) and it seems the academy has long left behind the pedagogical misdemeanor that Plato/Socrates were the last word on the Sophists, and each of the writers accords the Sophist school …. its surviving fragments …. its rightful space, just between you and me and James Carville.
nous, I’ve been catching up on the Pre-Socratics in recent months (see Philosophy Before Socrates, McKirnan; The First Philosophers, Oxford World’s Classics, and the much more readable “The Dream of Reason” by Anthony Gottlieb) and it seems the academy has long left behind the pedagogical misdemeanor that Plato/Socrates were the last word on the Sophists, and each of the writers accords the Sophist school …. its surviving fragments …. its rightful space, just between you and me and James Carville.
And while I’m sure you don’t have any ill will, I find these type of arguments not very sensitive to the people who had to endure these times.
Let me take a moment to try to be very clear.
I am not trying to second-guess the actions of Jewish people, or any other group of people, who were targeted by the Nazis in 30’s and 40’s Europe. Or, targeted by the Soviets, or the PRC, or Pol Pot, or the Hutus in Rwanda, or any other similar occasion of massive genocidal slaughter.
My point here is Gandhi’s advice – go bravely to your death – was not particularly useful. In retrospect, it seems kind of fatuous.
To be honest, I’m not sure what strategy makes sense when your opponent has a freaking army, you don’t, and they have decided that the only path forward is your extermination. Run away as fast as you can, if you can, perhaps, assuming you have somewhere to go. Which many of the folks we’re talking about didn’t.
The Jews of Europe in the mid-20th C were facing a nation – an armed, militant, industrial nation, a nation they thought they belonged to – that wanted to kill them. They didn’t need advice, they needed somebody else with an army to help them.
Western culture
If by ‘western culture’ we mean a distinctly European culture, I’d say the roots go back to maybe the 8th C. ‘The West’ as a distinct cultural identity didn’t really flower until the turn of the millenium. IMO.
I’m generally skeptical of the ‘western civilization begins with the Greeks’ narrative. A lot went on between now and then.
And while I’m sure you don’t have any ill will, I find these type of arguments not very sensitive to the people who had to endure these times.
Let me take a moment to try to be very clear.
I am not trying to second-guess the actions of Jewish people, or any other group of people, who were targeted by the Nazis in 30’s and 40’s Europe. Or, targeted by the Soviets, or the PRC, or Pol Pot, or the Hutus in Rwanda, or any other similar occasion of massive genocidal slaughter.
My point here is Gandhi’s advice – go bravely to your death – was not particularly useful. In retrospect, it seems kind of fatuous.
To be honest, I’m not sure what strategy makes sense when your opponent has a freaking army, you don’t, and they have decided that the only path forward is your extermination. Run away as fast as you can, if you can, perhaps, assuming you have somewhere to go. Which many of the folks we’re talking about didn’t.
The Jews of Europe in the mid-20th C were facing a nation – an armed, militant, industrial nation, a nation they thought they belonged to – that wanted to kill them. They didn’t need advice, they needed somebody else with an army to help them.
Western culture
If by ‘western culture’ we mean a distinctly European culture, I’d say the roots go back to maybe the 8th C. ‘The West’ as a distinct cultural identity didn’t really flower until the turn of the millenium. IMO.
I’m generally skeptical of the ‘western civilization begins with the Greeks’ narrative. A lot went on between now and then.
The Greeks is a useful fudge. We’ve got writings so we can talk about it. Absent writings, it becomes a lot more difficult.
On an ever so slightly related note Mark Ramseyer, last seen entangled with the comfort women issue, finds older articles cause problems as well
https://apjjf.org/2021/9/Neary.html
The Greeks is a useful fudge. We’ve got writings so we can talk about it. Absent writings, it becomes a lot more difficult.
On an ever so slightly related note Mark Ramseyer, last seen entangled with the comfort women issue, finds older articles cause problems as well
https://apjjf.org/2021/9/Neary.html
nooneithinkisinmytree – the Sophists have undergone a reconsideration and a rehabilitation. My friend Susan Jarratt has done a lot of that work in Rhetoric circles with her writing. The primary works, sadly, are mostly fragments and a lot of what we know of them has had to be inferred or reconstructed from secondary sources.
russell -I think you and lj and I are on the same page with the Ancient Greeks and Western Civ. We get there mostly through Aquinas’ embrace of Aristotle as “The Philosopher” in the Summa, and with that he and Plato being adopted into the foundation of Christendom. And it is through the notion of Christendom that something like a concept of Europe and The West emerges through contrast with Islam and The Far East. The Greeks were reverse engineered to be Western.
At least that’s close enough for blog work.
nooneithinkisinmytree – the Sophists have undergone a reconsideration and a rehabilitation. My friend Susan Jarratt has done a lot of that work in Rhetoric circles with her writing. The primary works, sadly, are mostly fragments and a lot of what we know of them has had to be inferred or reconstructed from secondary sources.
russell -I think you and lj and I are on the same page with the Ancient Greeks and Western Civ. We get there mostly through Aquinas’ embrace of Aristotle as “The Philosopher” in the Summa, and with that he and Plato being adopted into the foundation of Christendom. And it is through the notion of Christendom that something like a concept of Europe and The West emerges through contrast with Islam and The Far East. The Greeks were reverse engineered to be Western.
At least that’s close enough for blog work.
A lot of knowledge and technology was lost when Rome collapsed. How did that affect western civilization?
A lot of knowledge and technology was lost when Rome collapsed. How did that affect western civilization?
With the loss of a central government and the centralized fetters it placed on innovation through the yoke of standardization, the newly freed people went on to thrive in a golden age…
But seriously, question too big and too general to get much purchase on it, though it would probably launch several competing annotated bibliographies and regular skirmishes at the video conferences that followed in their wake.
With the loss of a central government and the centralized fetters it placed on innovation through the yoke of standardization, the newly freed people went on to thrive in a golden age…
But seriously, question too big and too general to get much purchase on it, though it would probably launch several competing annotated bibliographies and regular skirmishes at the video conferences that followed in their wake.
I thought that was CharlesWT until I noticed there was no Reason link…
But the word ‘lost’ is like the word ‘discover’ in “Columbus discovered the New World”. Setting aside Leif Erikson, the idea of discovering a place that is filled with people living there kind of begs the question.
One thing that ‘the West’ did was codify knowledge in a way that allowed it to be passed down, though they/we got lucky with the orthography used.
So while we can’t make an Antikythera mechanism or recreate the Portland Vase, so it is possible to say those processes are lost to us, precisely what is lost is an interesting question.
I thought that was CharlesWT until I noticed there was no Reason link…
But the word ‘lost’ is like the word ‘discover’ in “Columbus discovered the New World”. Setting aside Leif Erikson, the idea of discovering a place that is filled with people living there kind of begs the question.
One thing that ‘the West’ did was codify knowledge in a way that allowed it to be passed down, though they/we got lucky with the orthography used.
So while we can’t make an Antikythera mechanism or recreate the Portland Vase, so it is possible to say those processes are lost to us, precisely what is lost is an interesting question.
The Greeks were reverse engineered to be Western.
That sounds about right.
The Greeks were reverse engineered to be Western.
That sounds about right.
Not just the Greeks, everyone is reversed engineered to be Western. Whether they want to be or not…
Not just the Greeks, everyone is reversed engineered to be Western. Whether they want to be or not…
I’ve just started reading Richard Frank’s Tower of Skulls, which essentially re-centres the WWII narrative in the East – and has it starting with the 1937 Japanese onslaught in China.
I’ve just started reading Richard Frank’s Tower of Skulls, which essentially re-centres the WWII narrative in the East – and has it starting with the 1937 Japanese onslaught in China.
i just started 1491, which is a high-level survey of people in the Americas pre-Columbus.
i’m only like 30 pages in, but one thing stands out so far: a fallacy the author calls “Holmberg’s Mistake”. Holmberg was a young anthropologist in the early 1940s, who went to Bolivia to study a tribe of people who had very little Western contact. the author writes:
“Holmberg’s Mistake” though, was not figuring out that just 20 years prior smallpox and influenza had killed 95% of the Sirionó. and, on top of that, while the epidemics were raging, the Bolivian government and local cattle ranchers were hunting the Sirionó to use them as slaves.
so Holmberg was looking at a tattered remnant of a culture that had nearly been wiped out by Western diseases, then enslaved. those who survived the disease and weren’t enslaved had been living on the run for decades. so, yeah, they were not anyone’s idea of a thriving civilization at that point.
i just started 1491, which is a high-level survey of people in the Americas pre-Columbus.
i’m only like 30 pages in, but one thing stands out so far: a fallacy the author calls “Holmberg’s Mistake”. Holmberg was a young anthropologist in the early 1940s, who went to Bolivia to study a tribe of people who had very little Western contact. the author writes:
“Holmberg’s Mistake” though, was not figuring out that just 20 years prior smallpox and influenza had killed 95% of the Sirionó. and, on top of that, while the epidemics were raging, the Bolivian government and local cattle ranchers were hunting the Sirionó to use them as slaves.
so Holmberg was looking at a tattered remnant of a culture that had nearly been wiped out by Western diseases, then enslaved. those who survived the disease and weren’t enslaved had been living on the run for decades. so, yeah, they were not anyone’s idea of a thriving civilization at that point.
My point here is Gandhi’s advice – go bravely to your death – was not particularly useful. In retrospect, it seems kind of fatuous
In 1946 Gandhi said of the holocaust
That’s worse than fatuous.
My point here is Gandhi’s advice – go bravely to your death – was not particularly useful. In retrospect, it seems kind of fatuous
In 1946 Gandhi said of the holocaust
That’s worse than fatuous.
Hey, for the Greeks WE would have been the Western* (and Northern) barbarians. They were in the middle avoiding the bad extremes of the other peoples (cold brutes to the North, sly brownies to the South, uncivilized barbarians to the West, overcivilized (=decadent) barbarians to the East).
lj, ‘lost’ I think in the sense of ‘lost recipe’, i.e. the exact procedures died with the last practitioner or (less likely) the documents they were described on. Some techniques were also simply abandoned. In the special case of the coral red attic vases we know that they fell out of fashion** and there were different techniques to produce the effect*** (btw we find the same with the 17th century gold ruby glass). And that effect was less an ‘invention’ but a way to turn a classic failure in ceramic production into a new style (with several copycats jumping on the bandwagon). So, it was more a case of serendipity.
We (to-day) love those old pots and their artistry but the Greeks of the 2nd century BC obviously considered them old-fashioned crap.
We have not lost the ability to produce something like that itself****, we have to just relearn the techniques.
*the Romans included of course.
**as did the whole idea of the ‘colors of clay’ a few centuries later.
***by analyzing the products from different potters we can detect specific differences.
****caveat: some antique techniques cannot be reactivated because they relied on specific natural raw materials that ran out already in antiquity.
Hey, for the Greeks WE would have been the Western* (and Northern) barbarians. They were in the middle avoiding the bad extremes of the other peoples (cold brutes to the North, sly brownies to the South, uncivilized barbarians to the West, overcivilized (=decadent) barbarians to the East).
lj, ‘lost’ I think in the sense of ‘lost recipe’, i.e. the exact procedures died with the last practitioner or (less likely) the documents they were described on. Some techniques were also simply abandoned. In the special case of the coral red attic vases we know that they fell out of fashion** and there were different techniques to produce the effect*** (btw we find the same with the 17th century gold ruby glass). And that effect was less an ‘invention’ but a way to turn a classic failure in ceramic production into a new style (with several copycats jumping on the bandwagon). So, it was more a case of serendipity.
We (to-day) love those old pots and their artistry but the Greeks of the 2nd century BC obviously considered them old-fashioned crap.
We have not lost the ability to produce something like that itself****, we have to just relearn the techniques.
*the Romans included of course.
**as did the whole idea of the ‘colors of clay’ a few centuries later.
***by analyzing the products from different potters we can detect specific differences.
****caveat: some antique techniques cannot be reactivated because they relied on specific natural raw materials that ran out already in antiquity.
btw, it’s a good thing there’s n such thing as systemic racism:
btw, it’s a good thing there’s n such thing as systemic racism:
btw, it’s a good thing there’s n such thing as systemic racism:
Pull the appraiser’s license. That will make the point.
btw, it’s a good thing there’s n such thing as systemic racism:
Pull the appraiser’s license. That will make the point.
A lot of knowledge and technology was lost when Rome collapsed. How did that affect western civilization?
That kind of goes back to the question about what “western civilization” is anyway.
When “Rome collapsed”, most of Roman civilization was still humming along just fine. The Roman Empire didn’t even technically cease to exist as a thing until the middle of the 15th century, and even then its collective knowledge and technology didn’t simply vanish, but were subsumed by the Ottomans and other successors.
A lot of knowledge and technology was lost when Rome collapsed. How did that affect western civilization?
That kind of goes back to the question about what “western civilization” is anyway.
When “Rome collapsed”, most of Roman civilization was still humming along just fine. The Roman Empire didn’t even technically cease to exist as a thing until the middle of the 15th century, and even then its collective knowledge and technology didn’t simply vanish, but were subsumed by the Ottomans and other successors.
also, Zoe Lofgren’s compilation of Republican House member’s comments about their efforts to overturn the 2020 election is pretty amazing. no editorializing or interpreting or speculation, just 1900+ pages of screencaps of Tweets and FB posts.
and the GOP so hates that she made it that they’ve filed a ridiculous complaint against her for simply quoting them.
also, Zoe Lofgren’s compilation of Republican House member’s comments about their efforts to overturn the 2020 election is pretty amazing. no editorializing or interpreting or speculation, just 1900+ pages of screencaps of Tweets and FB posts.
and the GOP so hates that she made it that they’ve filed a ridiculous complaint against her for simply quoting them.
Out of circulation for longer than I thought, and a long and trying day – thank God now over. Will catch up tomorrow.
Out of circulation for longer than I thought, and a long and trying day – thank God now over. Will catch up tomorrow.
the GOP so hates that she made it that they’ve filed a ridiculous complaint against her for simply quoting them.
It’s not just that a member filed a complaint. It’s that their leadership went out and actively solicited said complaint.
I suppose it’s too much to hope that they are doing this because they are embarrassed by what they said. But maybe they think that perhaps they should be…? Nah.
the GOP so hates that she made it that they’ve filed a ridiculous complaint against her for simply quoting them.
It’s not just that a member filed a complaint. It’s that their leadership went out and actively solicited said complaint.
I suppose it’s too much to hope that they are doing this because they are embarrassed by what they said. But maybe they think that perhaps they should be…? Nah.
they just need to keep the faithful outraged.
Dems did something? file a complaint! crow about the complaint! [don’t tell anyone what the complaint is actually about.]
they just need to keep the faithful outraged.
Dems did something? file a complaint! crow about the complaint! [don’t tell anyone what the complaint is actually about.]
“No one expected WW3 to start this way.” – anonymous person from the future
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1266480
“No one expected WW3 to start this way.” – anonymous person from the future
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1266480
The Next 10 Years War!
The Next 10 Years War!
omg. i swear that was 100, not 10. when i clicked Post.
omg. i swear that was 100, not 10. when i clicked Post.
i swear that was 100, not 10. when i clicked Post.
Not a bad idea to start small, and work up to it.
i swear that was 100, not 10. when i clicked Post.
Not a bad idea to start small, and work up to it.
Wars are just faster now. Well, except in Afghanistan.
Wars are just faster now. Well, except in Afghanistan.
Well, except in Afghanistan.
Yeah, there are people serving in Afghanistan who hadn’t been born when it started.
Well, except in Afghanistan.
Yeah, there are people serving in Afghanistan who hadn’t been born when it started.
“No one expected WW3 to start this way.”
Free the sea bass!!
“No one expected WW3 to start this way.”
Free the sea bass!!
We’ve moved on a bit, but this, in relation to the Holocaust, might be related
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/06/guardian-200-ad-that-saved-jewish-father-from-nazis
We’ve moved on a bit, but this, in relation to the Holocaust, might be related
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/06/guardian-200-ad-that-saved-jewish-father-from-nazis
In what I think is her angriest and most polemic work, the novelette “The Word For World Is Forest”, Ursula LeGuin depicted a matriarch-led society that does not have war. First published by Harlan Ellison in one of his early-1970s Dangerous Visions anthologies.
In what I think is her angriest and most polemic work, the novelette “The Word For World Is Forest”, Ursula LeGuin depicted a matriarch-led society that does not have war. First published by Harlan Ellison in one of his early-1970s Dangerous Visions anthologies.
Joel, thanks for the reminder about that story.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-word-for-world-is-forest-1
Her dad was a anthropologist (and a linguist!), Alfred Louis Kroeber, who worked with Ishi, the last member of the Yahi tribe.
Joel, thanks for the reminder about that story.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-word-for-world-is-forest-1
Her dad was a anthropologist (and a linguist!), Alfred Louis Kroeber, who worked with Ishi, the last member of the Yahi tribe.
Someone, I think nous on another thread discussing universities requiring COVID vaccinations, mentioned offering a monetary benefit to maximize compliance among students. Here it is:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rowan-university-offering-1-000-012122603.html
Someone, I think nous on another thread discussing universities requiring COVID vaccinations, mentioned offering a monetary benefit to maximize compliance among students. Here it is:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rowan-university-offering-1-000-012122603.html
I didn’t know that particular Le Guin story, and will look forward to reading it, but I was of course familiar with the phenomenon of sci-fi thought experiments seeking to imagine societies without those metaphors (and aggressive impulses) baked in. And, pre-historically, I seem to remember something of the same kind of matriarchal idea in Gunther Grasse’s The Flounder, which I read decades ago.
When reading nous’s New Scientist link (which I found fascinating), my recurring thought was “Why is inequality and lack of cooperation in apportioning resources (as long as there are adequate resources) deemed automatically to imply innate models or metaphors of conquest, or battle? (In my admitted ignorance of much of political and economic theory, I’m guessing this is a consequence of a roughly Marxist analysis?) The only explicit answer was in this:
population growth meant we needed more food, so we turned to agriculture, which led to surplus and the need for managers and specialised roles, which in turn led to corresponding social classes. Meanwhile, we began to use up natural resources and needed to venture ever further afield to seek them out. This expansion bred conflict and conquest, with the conquered becoming the underclass.
And actually, I still don’t think it’s necessarily an obvious or automatic transition from one to the other (although you can certainly see how it can/could be).
Anyway, you (nous) certainly answered my question about any human cultures (which had left traces) which did not use these particular metaphors.
I knew ancient Chinese culture did use them, and sort of assumed MesoAmerican ones and South Pacific ones did. I’m not even going to get into anything to do with the discussion of Greece, the ancient philosophers, Rome, Christianity etc. I don’t know enough, but I will say this:
nous, reading you (and lj actually) sometimes makes me wish I hadn’t dropped out of college, and that I still had the concentration and the mental wherewithal to read serious books about this stuff. I hope you take this as the compliment I mean it to be.
Other than the above, I just wanted to say FWIW that when I read your following two paras, I thought: I see discussion (with friends, and the sort we have here) as being both these things (my bolded sections), at different times.
I don’t know that I can present any examples of a culture for which that militaristic metaphor of public discourse is absent. Mostly I was thinking about what sorts of, yes lj, conceptual metaphors are primary. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch for me to say that most people of European cultural background (and many others as well) see rhetoric and writing as a way of changing other people’s minds through the power of one’s insight, logic, and communicative prowess. That’s certainly the view of most of my students.
We seek to move others to our position through strength or to resist the imposition of another’s position on us. Rarely do we go in seeking to be moved and to revise our own cognitive footing. Few people think of public discourse as an exchange of words and ideas that allows one to find other ways of seeing and experiencing a problem to gain insight and a more productive, consensual understanding of a shared social world, even though those things also get articulated and have been a part of rhetoric since before Aristotle.
I didn’t know that particular Le Guin story, and will look forward to reading it, but I was of course familiar with the phenomenon of sci-fi thought experiments seeking to imagine societies without those metaphors (and aggressive impulses) baked in. And, pre-historically, I seem to remember something of the same kind of matriarchal idea in Gunther Grasse’s The Flounder, which I read decades ago.
When reading nous’s New Scientist link (which I found fascinating), my recurring thought was “Why is inequality and lack of cooperation in apportioning resources (as long as there are adequate resources) deemed automatically to imply innate models or metaphors of conquest, or battle? (In my admitted ignorance of much of political and economic theory, I’m guessing this is a consequence of a roughly Marxist analysis?) The only explicit answer was in this:
population growth meant we needed more food, so we turned to agriculture, which led to surplus and the need for managers and specialised roles, which in turn led to corresponding social classes. Meanwhile, we began to use up natural resources and needed to venture ever further afield to seek them out. This expansion bred conflict and conquest, with the conquered becoming the underclass.
And actually, I still don’t think it’s necessarily an obvious or automatic transition from one to the other (although you can certainly see how it can/could be).
Anyway, you (nous) certainly answered my question about any human cultures (which had left traces) which did not use these particular metaphors.
I knew ancient Chinese culture did use them, and sort of assumed MesoAmerican ones and South Pacific ones did. I’m not even going to get into anything to do with the discussion of Greece, the ancient philosophers, Rome, Christianity etc. I don’t know enough, but I will say this:
nous, reading you (and lj actually) sometimes makes me wish I hadn’t dropped out of college, and that I still had the concentration and the mental wherewithal to read serious books about this stuff. I hope you take this as the compliment I mean it to be.
Other than the above, I just wanted to say FWIW that when I read your following two paras, I thought: I see discussion (with friends, and the sort we have here) as being both these things (my bolded sections), at different times.
I don’t know that I can present any examples of a culture for which that militaristic metaphor of public discourse is absent. Mostly I was thinking about what sorts of, yes lj, conceptual metaphors are primary. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch for me to say that most people of European cultural background (and many others as well) see rhetoric and writing as a way of changing other people’s minds through the power of one’s insight, logic, and communicative prowess. That’s certainly the view of most of my students.
We seek to move others to our position through strength or to resist the imposition of another’s position on us. Rarely do we go in seeking to be moved and to revise our own cognitive footing. Few people think of public discourse as an exchange of words and ideas that allows one to find other ways of seeing and experiencing a problem to gain insight and a more productive, consensual understanding of a shared social world, even though those things also get articulated and have been a part of rhetoric since before Aristotle.
Italiexo!
Italiexo!
Meanwhile, we began to use up natural resources and needed to venture ever further afield to seek them out. This expansion bred conflict and conquest, with the conquered becoming the underclass.
And actually, I still don’t think it’s necessarily an obvious or automatic transition from one to the other (although you can certainly see how it can/could be).
I seem to recall (a lot of?) historical examples of upper classes obsessively competing for status and/or power, rather than natural resources. If anything, their wars were net absorbers of natural tesources. Even for the victors.
Certainly there have been wars and conquests to gain natural resources. But are they even a majority? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many where to leader was simply looking for some way to keep upper class young men out of mischief in the immediate neighborhood.
Meanwhile, we began to use up natural resources and needed to venture ever further afield to seek them out. This expansion bred conflict and conquest, with the conquered becoming the underclass.
And actually, I still don’t think it’s necessarily an obvious or automatic transition from one to the other (although you can certainly see how it can/could be).
I seem to recall (a lot of?) historical examples of upper classes obsessively competing for status and/or power, rather than natural resources. If anything, their wars were net absorbers of natural tesources. Even for the victors.
Certainly there have been wars and conquests to gain natural resources. But are they even a majority? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many where to leader was simply looking for some way to keep upper class young men out of mischief in the immediate neighborhood.
wj – my sense of what’s driving some of the speculation in that article is that the methodology is less history and more primatology (or even primate anthropology or ethnoprimatology). The theory being outlined in that article is likely less informed by historical studies and more informed by anthropological observations of human and primate hunter gatherer societies, trying to make sense of the social interactions writ large, and wary of the distorting effects of the observer’s preconceptions.
Returning to lj’s invocation of conceptual metaphors, a lot of early primatology was built upon anthropomorphizing primate social groups using late 19th C. social theory as a template. It’s a sort of impressionistic approach that can quickly run afoul of confirmation bias.
We can look through historical accounts to see what the recorders have to say about the events, but those historical accounts probably need to be tempered by the views from these other fields that are less embedded in cultural narratives and measures of self-justification.
Modern primatology/anthropology is pretty fascinating, and it’s had a profound effect on humanistic studies of history and literature, helping to really test and stretch a lot of the status-quo ideas about society and gender roles and the like.
wj – my sense of what’s driving some of the speculation in that article is that the methodology is less history and more primatology (or even primate anthropology or ethnoprimatology). The theory being outlined in that article is likely less informed by historical studies and more informed by anthropological observations of human and primate hunter gatherer societies, trying to make sense of the social interactions writ large, and wary of the distorting effects of the observer’s preconceptions.
Returning to lj’s invocation of conceptual metaphors, a lot of early primatology was built upon anthropomorphizing primate social groups using late 19th C. social theory as a template. It’s a sort of impressionistic approach that can quickly run afoul of confirmation bias.
We can look through historical accounts to see what the recorders have to say about the events, but those historical accounts probably need to be tempered by the views from these other fields that are less embedded in cultural narratives and measures of self-justification.
Modern primatology/anthropology is pretty fascinating, and it’s had a profound effect on humanistic studies of history and literature, helping to really test and stretch a lot of the status-quo ideas about society and gender roles and the like.
I’ve always wondered if Jane Goodall could keep a straight face at a cocktail party…
I’ve always wondered if Jane Goodall could keep a straight face at a cocktail party…
The theory being outlined in that article is likely less informed by historical studies and more informed by anthropological observations of human and primate hunter gatherer societies
In my observation (mostly from when I was picking up an MA in Anthropology, which admittedly was a while back), one of the greatest weaknesses of the social sciences is that they don’t much cross check each other. Someone from one field may go to another for insights to kick-start a new theory. But go to another for data to test a theory? Far more unusual.
Which has resulted in a proliferation of ideas which everybody in another field knows conflict with widely known (in that other field) data. Most social scientists are well aware of the problem when it comes to social sciences other than their own. Not sure how much attention the issue is getting these days.
The theory being outlined in that article is likely less informed by historical studies and more informed by anthropological observations of human and primate hunter gatherer societies
In my observation (mostly from when I was picking up an MA in Anthropology, which admittedly was a while back), one of the greatest weaknesses of the social sciences is that they don’t much cross check each other. Someone from one field may go to another for insights to kick-start a new theory. But go to another for data to test a theory? Far more unusual.
Which has resulted in a proliferation of ideas which everybody in another field knows conflict with widely known (in that other field) data. Most social scientists are well aware of the problem when it comes to social sciences other than their own. Not sure how much attention the issue is getting these days.
Certainly there have been wars and conquests to gain natural resources. But are they even a majority? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many where to leader was simply looking for some way to keep upper class young men out of mischief in the immediate neighborhood.
Or simply for status. I can’t see how a bronze age king conquering a neighboring city state ever really made any kings or cities better off in any material way*. What it did mean was the king could say he was a bigger king of two city states now. Power for power’s sake.
There’s a striking parallel there with modern day politicians, CEOs and the like, always grasping for more wealth and power, long past the point where any material need or want they might have is fully satisfied.
—-
* There’s loot, but I’m not sure having a second treasury would really make the king himself much better off than the one he already had, not worth the risk anyway. What might be more important are the one-time gains the tiers of retainers just below the king make out of the deal.
(I suppose there’s also a geopolitical calculus — conquering territory might give you a bigger buffer against hostile neighbors, and a bigger army in the future. But that’s really a second-order response, you have to already be worried the other guy has motivation to do it first.)
Certainly there have been wars and conquests to gain natural resources. But are they even a majority? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many where to leader was simply looking for some way to keep upper class young men out of mischief in the immediate neighborhood.
Or simply for status. I can’t see how a bronze age king conquering a neighboring city state ever really made any kings or cities better off in any material way*. What it did mean was the king could say he was a bigger king of two city states now. Power for power’s sake.
There’s a striking parallel there with modern day politicians, CEOs and the like, always grasping for more wealth and power, long past the point where any material need or want they might have is fully satisfied.
—-
* There’s loot, but I’m not sure having a second treasury would really make the king himself much better off than the one he already had, not worth the risk anyway. What might be more important are the one-time gains the tiers of retainers just below the king make out of the deal.
(I suppose there’s also a geopolitical calculus — conquering territory might give you a bigger buffer against hostile neighbors, and a bigger army in the future. But that’s really a second-order response, you have to already be worried the other guy has motivation to do it first.)
There’s a striking parallel there with modern day politicians, CEOs and the like, always grasping for more wealth and power, long past the point where any material need or want they might have is fully satisfied.
It does make you wonder why some of the super rich get so exercised about their taxes. They aren’t going to take any real-world material hit from a higher top marginal tax rate. And, as long as they made the money, they can still tout their income to their peers (the only actual utility for it).
There’s a striking parallel there with modern day politicians, CEOs and the like, always grasping for more wealth and power, long past the point where any material need or want they might have is fully satisfied.
It does make you wonder why some of the super rich get so exercised about their taxes. They aren’t going to take any real-world material hit from a higher top marginal tax rate. And, as long as they made the money, they can still tout their income to their peers (the only actual utility for it).
There’s loot, but I’m not sure having a second treasury would really make the king himself much better off than the one he already had, not worth the risk anyway.
And he may have been net worse off for having it. The Spanish and Portuguese colonial powers found out that having more gold and silver does not correspondingly make you wealthier. They hauled tons of it back to Europe and their economies crashed while their northern neighbors got wealthier.
There’s loot, but I’m not sure having a second treasury would really make the king himself much better off than the one he already had, not worth the risk anyway.
And he may have been net worse off for having it. The Spanish and Portuguese colonial powers found out that having more gold and silver does not correspondingly make you wealthier. They hauled tons of it back to Europe and their economies crashed while their northern neighbors got wealthier.
Meanwhile, we began to use up natural resources and needed to venture ever further afield to seek them out.
What resources? And what’s the evidence for it?
I’d have thought that the natural explanation would that the success of agricultural societies led to growing populations which wanted more land to live in.
Meanwhile, we began to use up natural resources and needed to venture ever further afield to seek them out.
What resources? And what’s the evidence for it?
I’d have thought that the natural explanation would that the success of agricultural societies led to growing populations which wanted more land to live in.
IIRC, there are some archaeological hints of egalitarian and (perhaps) more peaceful societies in the distant past. Like the Çatalhöyük settlement or the mysterious cities of the so-called Indus Valley Civilization.
The speculation about egalitarianism being a sort of more-desirable, but unstable equilibrium is fascinating. It seems self-evidently true, it’s largely just a question of how do we get (back?) to that from here.
I read a sci-fi short-story long ago which deeply affected me, though I can’t remember the title or author. The gist was that this one society had advanced material science to the limit, and proceeded to go out on a conquering spree, as you do. It was all a great success until they ran into a seemingly peaceful society that had developed the social and psychological sciences to the utmost instead. At which point there was no contest.
Obviously the first society is us.
I’m not sure I’d say we haven’t developed the technology of social organization at all — joint stock corporations and continent-spanning democracies are pretty sophisticated in some ways. But I suspect they’ll look like paleolithic hand-axes to our descendants a few thousands years hence (if we make it that far).
It’s pretty telling, for example, that psychopathic personalities seem to be at least an order of magnitude more common in leadership roles than in the general population. We’re really not doing that right.
IIRC, there are some archaeological hints of egalitarian and (perhaps) more peaceful societies in the distant past. Like the Çatalhöyük settlement or the mysterious cities of the so-called Indus Valley Civilization.
The speculation about egalitarianism being a sort of more-desirable, but unstable equilibrium is fascinating. It seems self-evidently true, it’s largely just a question of how do we get (back?) to that from here.
I read a sci-fi short-story long ago which deeply affected me, though I can’t remember the title or author. The gist was that this one society had advanced material science to the limit, and proceeded to go out on a conquering spree, as you do. It was all a great success until they ran into a seemingly peaceful society that had developed the social and psychological sciences to the utmost instead. At which point there was no contest.
Obviously the first society is us.
I’m not sure I’d say we haven’t developed the technology of social organization at all — joint stock corporations and continent-spanning democracies are pretty sophisticated in some ways. But I suspect they’ll look like paleolithic hand-axes to our descendants a few thousands years hence (if we make it that far).
It’s pretty telling, for example, that psychopathic personalities seem to be at least an order of magnitude more common in leadership roles than in the general population. We’re really not doing that right.
It does make you wonder why some of the super rich get so exercised about their taxes.
Some may see taxes as reducing their agency to do the next big thing.
It does make you wonder why some of the super rich get so exercised about their taxes.
Some may see taxes as reducing their agency to do the next big thing.
There’s a striking parallel there with modern day politicians, CEOs and the like, always grasping for more wealth and power, long past the point where any material need or want they might have is fully satisfied.
One thing to keep in mind here is that modern pols and CEOs live in a globalized media environment and socialize with other people in similar circumstances. The degree to which this is true of more ancient civilizations is something to be considered.
Who is the person trying to seek status from? What are the benefits of status to that person?
Also, when these studies talk about cooperation vs competition, they are talking about a much earlier stage than the Bronze Age. More like the Neolithic and Çatalhöyük, as you mention.
Last bit to throw into the mix here – it may be helpful to think of conceptual metaphors as a type of technology as well. Not sure where that idea is going yet, but it’s percolating in the back of my mind as I try to work through all this.
There’s a striking parallel there with modern day politicians, CEOs and the like, always grasping for more wealth and power, long past the point where any material need or want they might have is fully satisfied.
One thing to keep in mind here is that modern pols and CEOs live in a globalized media environment and socialize with other people in similar circumstances. The degree to which this is true of more ancient civilizations is something to be considered.
Who is the person trying to seek status from? What are the benefits of status to that person?
Also, when these studies talk about cooperation vs competition, they are talking about a much earlier stage than the Bronze Age. More like the Neolithic and Çatalhöyük, as you mention.
Last bit to throw into the mix here – it may be helpful to think of conceptual metaphors as a type of technology as well. Not sure where that idea is going yet, but it’s percolating in the back of my mind as I try to work through all this.
I seem to recall (a lot of?) historical examples of upper classes obsessively competing for status and/or power, rather than natural resources. If anything, their wars were net absorbers of natural tesources. Even for the victors.
I think one has to take into account the mindset and beliefs (real or stated) of the actors. Even today we have ‘wars pay for themselves’ proclamations (e.g. before the last Iraq war). In classical Rome agriculture got fetishized as the sole honest source of income (and the influence derived therefrom). And while it was a losing strategy in the long run, Rome actually needed parts of its expansion to gain access to new resources to feed the city (Sicily first, later Egypt became the breadbasket of Rome and any interruption of the grain flow risked violent revolution).
Of course ‘glory’ cannot be discounted as another important factor (although that could turn out as perishable a good as foodstuffs).
I seem to recall (a lot of?) historical examples of upper classes obsessively competing for status and/or power, rather than natural resources. If anything, their wars were net absorbers of natural tesources. Even for the victors.
I think one has to take into account the mindset and beliefs (real or stated) of the actors. Even today we have ‘wars pay for themselves’ proclamations (e.g. before the last Iraq war). In classical Rome agriculture got fetishized as the sole honest source of income (and the influence derived therefrom). And while it was a losing strategy in the long run, Rome actually needed parts of its expansion to gain access to new resources to feed the city (Sicily first, later Egypt became the breadbasket of Rome and any interruption of the grain flow risked violent revolution).
Of course ‘glory’ cannot be discounted as another important factor (although that could turn out as perishable a good as foodstuffs).
In my observation (mostly from when I was picking up an MA in Anthropology, which admittedly was a while back), one of the greatest weaknesses of the social sciences is that they don’t much cross check each other. Someone from one field may go to another for insights to kick-start a new theory. But go to another for data to test a theory? Far more unusual.
In the case of what’s called “The Anthropological Turn” in the humanities, it was less about borrowing concepts and case studies and more about trying to apply methodologies to new areas of social interaction. For example, in my writing class I talk about ethnography and Geertz idea of “thick description” and try to get my students to think about a) the cultures and folkways that they are navigating as they try to make meaning b) the cultures and folkways of the people they are writing to, and c) the shared ground between those two that can be used to negotiate shared meaning in the face of difference. Likewise, when I do literary research, I try to think about the cultural structures and the historical contexts that shape both the production(s) of and the reception(s) of particular literary texts, and how meaning shifts as the contexts change.
I try to avoid borrowing x concept from y culture to explain something elsewhere.
In my observation (mostly from when I was picking up an MA in Anthropology, which admittedly was a while back), one of the greatest weaknesses of the social sciences is that they don’t much cross check each other. Someone from one field may go to another for insights to kick-start a new theory. But go to another for data to test a theory? Far more unusual.
In the case of what’s called “The Anthropological Turn” in the humanities, it was less about borrowing concepts and case studies and more about trying to apply methodologies to new areas of social interaction. For example, in my writing class I talk about ethnography and Geertz idea of “thick description” and try to get my students to think about a) the cultures and folkways that they are navigating as they try to make meaning b) the cultures and folkways of the people they are writing to, and c) the shared ground between those two that can be used to negotiate shared meaning in the face of difference. Likewise, when I do literary research, I try to think about the cultural structures and the historical contexts that shape both the production(s) of and the reception(s) of particular literary texts, and how meaning shifts as the contexts change.
I try to avoid borrowing x concept from y culture to explain something elsewhere.
What might be more important are the one-time gains the tiers of retainers just below the king make out of the deal.
Yes, that model also describes Scandinavian chieftains and Mongolian khans very well. The boss needed a constant supply of loot to keep his retinue happy. Norse poetry is full of that, chiefs praised as givers of rings or enemies of gold (because they gave it to their men instead of keeping it for themselves).
What might be more important are the one-time gains the tiers of retainers just below the king make out of the deal.
Yes, that model also describes Scandinavian chieftains and Mongolian khans very well. The boss needed a constant supply of loot to keep his retinue happy. Norse poetry is full of that, chiefs praised as givers of rings or enemies of gold (because they gave it to their men instead of keeping it for themselves).
Some may see taxes as reducing their agency to do the next big thing.
They might see things that way, I suppose. But it would be more plausible if there was a track record of wealth producing “the next big thing” any more often than far more modest circumstances. Indeed, there isn’t much of a track record of them even trying to create something innovative. (Excluding financial innovation targeting tax avoidance.)
Some may see taxes as reducing their agency to do the next big thing.
They might see things that way, I suppose. But it would be more plausible if there was a track record of wealth producing “the next big thing” any more often than far more modest circumstances. Indeed, there isn’t much of a track record of them even trying to create something innovative. (Excluding financial innovation targeting tax avoidance.)
I’d have thought that the natural explanation would that the success of agricultural societies led to growing populations which wanted more land to live in.
I’d sort of assumed that this [more land to live in] is what was meant by venturing further afield to find more resources.
I’d have thought that the natural explanation would that the success of agricultural societies led to growing populations which wanted more land to live in.
I’d sort of assumed that this [more land to live in] is what was meant by venturing further afield to find more resources.
The degree to which this is true of more ancient civilizations is something to be considered.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
I’m not sure what archaeological evidence is available in other regions and eras, but I’d be surprised if there were any ancient civilizations that were truly isolated from or unaware of their neighbors, to the extent that technology allowed. We tend to underestimate our predecessors, or assume that “no evidence = no activity”, but it’s not really true at all.
Also, when these studies talk about cooperation vs competition, they are talking about a much earlier stage than the Bronze Age. More like the Neolithic and Çatalhöyük, as you mention.
Oh yes. It’s pretty clear that by the bronze age, or even late neolithic, whatever widespread egalitarian societies might have existed were long gone. (With the possible exception of the Indus Valley, I suppose.) To the extent the timeline is similar in the Americas, Africa and the Pacific, maybe we could shed some light on whether there’s some connection to e.g., the rise of agriculture.
There’s a theory I’ve heard, as sketchy as it is interesting, that at least the particular patriarchal brand of hierarchy in Europe and the Near East might have been an import. Probably from the Eurasian steppes. I think maybe its even supposed to be a wave of conquest co-incident with the one that brought in proto-Indo-European.
The degree to which this is true of more ancient civilizations is something to be considered.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
I’m not sure what archaeological evidence is available in other regions and eras, but I’d be surprised if there were any ancient civilizations that were truly isolated from or unaware of their neighbors, to the extent that technology allowed. We tend to underestimate our predecessors, or assume that “no evidence = no activity”, but it’s not really true at all.
Also, when these studies talk about cooperation vs competition, they are talking about a much earlier stage than the Bronze Age. More like the Neolithic and Çatalhöyük, as you mention.
Oh yes. It’s pretty clear that by the bronze age, or even late neolithic, whatever widespread egalitarian societies might have existed were long gone. (With the possible exception of the Indus Valley, I suppose.) To the extent the timeline is similar in the Americas, Africa and the Pacific, maybe we could shed some light on whether there’s some connection to e.g., the rise of agriculture.
There’s a theory I’ve heard, as sketchy as it is interesting, that at least the particular patriarchal brand of hierarchy in Europe and the Near East might have been an import. Probably from the Eurasian steppes. I think maybe its even supposed to be a wave of conquest co-incident with the one that brought in proto-Indo-European.
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and
Richard Branson are examples of the very wealthy using their wealth to do the next big thing.
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and
Richard Branson are examples of the very wealthy using their wealth to do the next big thing.
Musk, certainly. Branson tried, but wasn’t particularly successful as regards new technology (as opposed to a new pricing model).
Bezos? Maybe. Gates? Did something new with Microsoft (when he wasn’t particularly rich); but since?
It maybe be noteworthy that the folks agitating most against higher top end taxes, e.g the Koches or the Mercers, are doing nothing like.
Musk, certainly. Branson tried, but wasn’t particularly successful as regards new technology (as opposed to a new pricing model).
Bezos? Maybe. Gates? Did something new with Microsoft (when he wasn’t particularly rich); but since?
It maybe be noteworthy that the folks agitating most against higher top end taxes, e.g the Koches or the Mercers, are doing nothing like.
Gates? Did something new with Microsoft (when he wasn’t particularly rich); but since?
Bill’s next big thing might be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. And Melinda’s next big thing is walking away from Bill with half of their joint millions.
Gates? Did something new with Microsoft (when he wasn’t particularly rich); but since?
Bill’s next big thing might be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. And Melinda’s next big thing is walking away from Bill with half of their joint millions.
Some may see taxes as reducing their agency to do the next big thing.
when in fact their taxes are being used to create the environment in which the next big thing can be created.
see a lot of innovation in Somalia?
Some may see taxes as reducing their agency to do the next big thing.
when in fact their taxes are being used to create the environment in which the next big thing can be created.
see a lot of innovation in Somalia?
Bill’s next big thing might be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Counterfactuals are, admittedly, quite hard, but Bill Gates basically bought an operating system from somebody else and signed an agreement to provide it to IBM, thereby spring-boarding to immense wealth.
Our computing culture would have pretty much gotten to where we are today without Bill Gates.
So I guess it all comes down to what, exactly, constitutes “the next big thing.”
Bill’s next big thing might be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Counterfactuals are, admittedly, quite hard, but Bill Gates basically bought an operating system from somebody else and signed an agreement to provide it to IBM, thereby spring-boarding to immense wealth.
Our computing culture would have pretty much gotten to where we are today without Bill Gates.
So I guess it all comes down to what, exactly, constitutes “the next big thing.”
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
I’d heard a bit of this from people with a stronger background in the period than my own dabbling. (I try to draw parallels to Settlement Era Iceland for comparison to get me on the page). I know there was economic exchange and diplomacy and cultural contact, I’m just not sure how much of that turns into something like today’s media driven mass culture. The connections are there, but the speeds of exchange of information are much slower. I’d expect that the slowness of information would make local competition for status more primary than more distant status.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
I’d heard a bit of this from people with a stronger background in the period than my own dabbling. (I try to draw parallels to Settlement Era Iceland for comparison to get me on the page). I know there was economic exchange and diplomacy and cultural contact, I’m just not sure how much of that turns into something like today’s media driven mass culture. The connections are there, but the speeds of exchange of information are much slower. I’d expect that the slowness of information would make local competition for status more primary than more distant status.
Bill’s next big thing might be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Charities funded by rich guys go back (at least) to Carnegie and Rockefeller over a century ago. Nothing “next” here.
Bill’s next big thing might be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Charities funded by rich guys go back (at least) to Carnegie and Rockefeller over a century ago. Nothing “next” here.
And Melinda’s next big thing is walking away from Bill with half of their joint
mbillions Three orders of magnitude is not small change.
*****
Addition to one of the themes above: the potlatch.
And Melinda’s next big thing is walking away from Bill with half of their joint
mbillions Three orders of magnitude is not small change.
*****
Addition to one of the themes above: the potlatch.
B&MGF is much more of a participatory charity than traditional charities have been.
B&MGF is much more of a participatory charity than traditional charities have been.
I’d never heard of the Çatalhöyük before. The Wikipedia page is fascinating.
I’d never heard of the Çatalhöyük before. The Wikipedia page is fascinating.
Çatalhöyük and Gimbutas’ theories about its society played a big role in Second Wave feminism (along with Eisler’s writing about Minoan Crete). I’m not up to date on the back and forth over how much of their work is supported or challenged by current archaeological evidence.
Çatalhöyük and Gimbutas’ theories about its society played a big role in Second Wave feminism (along with Eisler’s writing about Minoan Crete). I’m not up to date on the back and forth over how much of their work is supported or challenged by current archaeological evidence.
And while thinking about these matters, I wondered about Aboriginal Australian culture. Obviously there’s nothing written, but their oral tradition is believed, I think, to be many thousands of years old, and I see from Wikipedia that at the time of initial European settlement there were 250 Aboriginal languages spoken. I wonder if there is any indication of warlike stories, myths etc between the various first peoples? Or did the fact that (I think) they did not have fixed settlements, but moved around, tend to preclude the sort of concepts of aggression and battle that we were talking about?
And while thinking about these matters, I wondered about Aboriginal Australian culture. Obviously there’s nothing written, but their oral tradition is believed, I think, to be many thousands of years old, and I see from Wikipedia that at the time of initial European settlement there were 250 Aboriginal languages spoken. I wonder if there is any indication of warlike stories, myths etc between the various first peoples? Or did the fact that (I think) they did not have fixed settlements, but moved around, tend to preclude the sort of concepts of aggression and battle that we were talking about?
I’d expect that the slowness of information would make local competition for status more primary than more distant status.
You could probably argue that’s true even today. How much is a big time Wall Street finance guy really competing for status with, say, Russian oligarchs, rather than just the other Wall Street finance bros whose parties he goes to.
On the other hand, there are an awful lot of old clay tablets that start out with some line like “XYZ, king of kings, undefeated conqueror of P and Q and R…”
They were bragging to somebody.
I’d expect that the slowness of information would make local competition for status more primary than more distant status.
You could probably argue that’s true even today. How much is a big time Wall Street finance guy really competing for status with, say, Russian oligarchs, rather than just the other Wall Street finance bros whose parties he goes to.
On the other hand, there are an awful lot of old clay tablets that start out with some line like “XYZ, king of kings, undefeated conqueror of P and Q and R…”
They were bragging to somebody.
They were bragging to somebody.
Having said that, I’m not actually sure status and competition are the same thing.
On some level, I think the point is that this is purely pathological.
The king of two cities who wants to be king of three cities isn’t necessarily even doing it because he’s heard some other king has three cities already. He’s just doing it because he wants to be king of three cities, dammit. And then four. Ditto for a guy who’s already got $100 billion dollars more than anyone else in the world but figures might as well make it $200 billion.
They were bragging to somebody.
Having said that, I’m not actually sure status and competition are the same thing.
On some level, I think the point is that this is purely pathological.
The king of two cities who wants to be king of three cities isn’t necessarily even doing it because he’s heard some other king has three cities already. He’s just doing it because he wants to be king of three cities, dammit. And then four. Ditto for a guy who’s already got $100 billion dollars more than anyone else in the world but figures might as well make it $200 billion.
The king of two cities who wants to be king of three cities isn’t necessarily even doing it because he’s heard some other king has three cities already. He’s just doing it because he wants to be king of three cities, dammit. And then four. Ditto for a guy who’s already got $100 billion dollars more than anyone else in the world but figures might as well make it $200 billion.
For some people, “enough” is a null concept. If psychology doesn’t have a diagnosis for those who simply cannot even imagine being satisfied, it ought to.
The king of two cities who wants to be king of three cities isn’t necessarily even doing it because he’s heard some other king has three cities already. He’s just doing it because he wants to be king of three cities, dammit. And then four. Ditto for a guy who’s already got $100 billion dollars more than anyone else in the world but figures might as well make it $200 billion.
For some people, “enough” is a null concept. If psychology doesn’t have a diagnosis for those who simply cannot even imagine being satisfied, it ought to.
Gimbutas’
Ah! That’s what I was thinking of re: the importation of patriarchy.
I stumbled across a sort of retrospective seminar thing on Youtube a while back. I think my takeaway was that the archaeological support hasn’t really moved much either way. The period in question is so far back that speculation still very much rules the day. Barring some really lucky or spectacular find, that’ll probably be true for the foreseeable future.
Gimbutas’
Ah! That’s what I was thinking of re: the importation of patriarchy.
I stumbled across a sort of retrospective seminar thing on Youtube a while back. I think my takeaway was that the archaeological support hasn’t really moved much either way. The period in question is so far back that speculation still very much rules the day. Barring some really lucky or spectacular find, that’ll probably be true for the foreseeable future.
From the wikipedia page
Mellaart, the original excavator, argued that these well-formed, carefully made figurines, carved and molded from marble, blue and brown limestone, schist, calcite, basalt, alabaster, and clay, represented a female deity. […]
Whereas Mellaart excavated nearly two hundred buildings in four seasons, the current excavator, Ian Hodder, spent an entire season excavating one building alone. […] Instead of a Mother Goddess culture, Hodder points out that the site gives little indication of a matriarchy or patriarchy.
This is not as a counter to anything anyone said here, just the whole ‘you can go fast or you can go slow’ came to mind here.
From the wikipedia page
Mellaart, the original excavator, argued that these well-formed, carefully made figurines, carved and molded from marble, blue and brown limestone, schist, calcite, basalt, alabaster, and clay, represented a female deity. […]
Whereas Mellaart excavated nearly two hundred buildings in four seasons, the current excavator, Ian Hodder, spent an entire season excavating one building alone. […] Instead of a Mother Goddess culture, Hodder points out that the site gives little indication of a matriarchy or patriarchy.
This is not as a counter to anything anyone said here, just the whole ‘you can go fast or you can go slow’ came to mind here.
And “current thinking rejects” can change back, if you wait long enough. I was going to use as an example way back how “Coming of Age in Samoa” had been largely discredited, but I see now that the discrediting has not necessarily held up.
And “current thinking rejects” can change back, if you wait long enough. I was going to use as an example way back how “Coming of Age in Samoa” had been largely discredited, but I see now that the discrediting has not necessarily held up.
There are always agendas at work in these scholarship trends.
Here’s a pretty thorough taste of the back and forth on Gimbutas’ work from an advocate of hers: http://www.archaeomythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spretnak-Journal-7.pdf
I’d last followed up on any of this about 20 years ago, so I’m glad I withheld any judgment. I don’t have enough expertise to pronounce on the subject.
There are always agendas at work in these scholarship trends.
Here’s a pretty thorough taste of the back and forth on Gimbutas’ work from an advocate of hers: http://www.archaeomythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spretnak-Journal-7.pdf
I’d last followed up on any of this about 20 years ago, so I’m glad I withheld any judgment. I don’t have enough expertise to pronounce on the subject.
One thing that has shaped the way I write, especially here, is that I will ‘know’ something and in checking it out, I’ll find that things have flipped or something has been overlooked or whatever. I’ve posted about Ötzi here, and I spent a lot of time reading about him and what was presumed to happen to him. However, when I returned to write a blog post, a combination of new tech, new findings and reinterpreted evidence made those early presumptions untenable.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/scientists-reconstruct-otzi-iceman-final-climb
https://sites.google.com/site/otzitheiceman2013/4-different-theories
A useful reminder to avoid dogmatism.
One thing that has shaped the way I write, especially here, is that I will ‘know’ something and in checking it out, I’ll find that things have flipped or something has been overlooked or whatever. I’ve posted about Ötzi here, and I spent a lot of time reading about him and what was presumed to happen to him. However, when I returned to write a blog post, a combination of new tech, new findings and reinterpreted evidence made those early presumptions untenable.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/scientists-reconstruct-otzi-iceman-final-climb
https://sites.google.com/site/otzitheiceman2013/4-different-theories
A useful reminder to avoid dogmatism.
And thanks for that article, nous. My reading has overlapped slightly with that thru Colin Renfrew, who is mentioned in the article.
Renfrew is someone who has complained that ‘Most of the well-respected linguists are specialists perhaps in a single language family. ‘ and who claim (according to him) that ‘The criticisms made of them (by well respected linguists) seem to me sometimes not very valid- they’re expressed as a principle which is that you can’t go beyond 5,000 years.’
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/renfrew/renfrew_p3.html
Unfortunately, it is not a ‘principle’ it is an acknowledgement that the evidence going that far back has to be much stronger. Finding pairs of words that seem similar in the absence of meaningful patterns is just asking confirmation bias to pull up a chair. And linguists complained that Renfrew cherry picked his information to push his theories.
Renfrew, along with Cavilli-Sforza, who used population genetics, proposed a rethinking of IE pre-history and they were interesting proposals, so it is really sad that much of what was interesting was subsumed in pissing contests. And even sadder that an argument in one place would spread out to effect other domains.
And thanks for that article, nous. My reading has overlapped slightly with that thru Colin Renfrew, who is mentioned in the article.
Renfrew is someone who has complained that ‘Most of the well-respected linguists are specialists perhaps in a single language family. ‘ and who claim (according to him) that ‘The criticisms made of them (by well respected linguists) seem to me sometimes not very valid- they’re expressed as a principle which is that you can’t go beyond 5,000 years.’
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/renfrew/renfrew_p3.html
Unfortunately, it is not a ‘principle’ it is an acknowledgement that the evidence going that far back has to be much stronger. Finding pairs of words that seem similar in the absence of meaningful patterns is just asking confirmation bias to pull up a chair. And linguists complained that Renfrew cherry picked his information to push his theories.
Renfrew, along with Cavilli-Sforza, who used population genetics, proposed a rethinking of IE pre-history and they were interesting proposals, so it is really sad that much of what was interesting was subsumed in pissing contests. And even sadder that an argument in one place would spread out to effect other domains.
B&MGF is much more of a participatory charity than traditional charities have been.
Give me the hands off approach of the Ford Foundation any day. The Gates version seems to be rather ideological in its “participatory” approach (cf their educational “charity”). Unfortunately it is an ideology that is not anything near what I would find much to agree with.
The fact that all of that wealth is essentially based on a government granted monopoly only makes it more galling. Give me the Rockefeller thuggery any day.
B&MGF is much more of a participatory charity than traditional charities have been.
Give me the hands off approach of the Ford Foundation any day. The Gates version seems to be rather ideological in its “participatory” approach (cf their educational “charity”). Unfortunately it is an ideology that is not anything near what I would find much to agree with.
The fact that all of that wealth is essentially based on a government granted monopoly only makes it more galling. Give me the Rockefeller thuggery any day.
The fact that all of that wealth is essentially based on a government granted monopoly only makes it more galling.
Surely I am not the only one to have noticed that, when IBM effectively had a monopoly on commercial mainframe computers, the Federal government forced them to let other companies (c.f. Amdahl) offer the same operating system independently. Yet somehow, Apple seems to have been construed as adequate competition for Microsoft, even though their OS won’t run most of the same applications. Odd, that.
The fact that all of that wealth is essentially based on a government granted monopoly only makes it more galling.
Surely I am not the only one to have noticed that, when IBM effectively had a monopoly on commercial mainframe computers, the Federal government forced them to let other companies (c.f. Amdahl) offer the same operating system independently. Yet somehow, Apple seems to have been construed as adequate competition for Microsoft, even though their OS won’t run most of the same applications. Odd, that.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
civilizations across the Americas at the time were interconnected, too. there were continent-spanning trade networks, war, peace, diplomacy, etc..
as far as writing goes, the Maya had it but then lost it, when their civilization started to collapse (possibly thanks to extended drought, plus war). but, Mayan craftspeople were still carving the glyphs into rocks – they just didn’t know what the glyphs meant. so late-era Mayan writing is often sheer nonsense.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
civilizations across the Americas at the time were interconnected, too. there were continent-spanning trade networks, war, peace, diplomacy, etc..
as far as writing goes, the Maya had it but then lost it, when their civilization started to collapse (possibly thanks to extended drought, plus war). but, Mayan craftspeople were still carving the glyphs into rocks – they just didn’t know what the glyphs meant. so late-era Mayan writing is often sheer nonsense.
Yet somehow, Apple seems to have been construed as adequate competition for Microsoft, even though their OS won’t run most of the same applications.
Interestingly, when mobile devices are included, Linux is now the clear winner globally — more devices in use and more than 50% of new sales. Two thirds of the global server market is Linux. All of the top 500 super computers in the world use Linux. Chromebook sales globally (also Linux underneath) recently passed Macs. I recently read a piece about Pixar. The business side uses a mix of Macs and Windows. Everyone who touches the 3D production chain is running a Linux box.
A couple of months ago the increasingly difficult position Apple had put me in for maintaining the software environment I want came to a head. I bought a relatively inexpensive little box to replace my Mini, loaded Linux on it, and that’s my current main machine. I’ve used Unix at least part time since 1979, and Linux since 1992, so it wasn’t that big a deal to set things up the way I want. I wouldn’t recommend it to someone who wants a tightly integrated system, but it’s a good fit for me.
On the Mac, I kept a VirtualBox virtual machine with Windows 10 loaded, in case there was some situation where I absolutely, positively had to use a bit of Windows software. The VM moved flawlessly to the new Linux box.
Yet somehow, Apple seems to have been construed as adequate competition for Microsoft, even though their OS won’t run most of the same applications.
Interestingly, when mobile devices are included, Linux is now the clear winner globally — more devices in use and more than 50% of new sales. Two thirds of the global server market is Linux. All of the top 500 super computers in the world use Linux. Chromebook sales globally (also Linux underneath) recently passed Macs. I recently read a piece about Pixar. The business side uses a mix of Macs and Windows. Everyone who touches the 3D production chain is running a Linux box.
A couple of months ago the increasingly difficult position Apple had put me in for maintaining the software environment I want came to a head. I bought a relatively inexpensive little box to replace my Mini, loaded Linux on it, and that’s my current main machine. I’ve used Unix at least part time since 1979, and Linux since 1992, so it wasn’t that big a deal to set things up the way I want. I wouldn’t recommend it to someone who wants a tightly integrated system, but it’s a good fit for me.
On the Mac, I kept a VirtualBox virtual machine with Windows 10 loaded, in case there was some situation where I absolutely, positively had to use a bit of Windows software. The VM moved flawlessly to the new Linux box.
Gimbutas
I’m familiar with Gimbutas through the advocacy of the late Layne Redmond, who was an outstanding drummer and just a generally remarkable human being. Redmond found her way to Gimbutas’ work through her own research into archaic traditions of women drummers, primarily frame drums, which was her own instrument. Redmond’s hypothesis is that the drumming traditions were part of rituals associated with the cult of Cybele and related female deities. For a lot of her career she maintained a troupe of women drummers who re-enacted their understanding of archaic rituals around transforming consciousness and energy.
Sometimes I think the more we know, the less we know. We all comb history in an effort to understand ourselves.
Gimbutas
I’m familiar with Gimbutas through the advocacy of the late Layne Redmond, who was an outstanding drummer and just a generally remarkable human being. Redmond found her way to Gimbutas’ work through her own research into archaic traditions of women drummers, primarily frame drums, which was her own instrument. Redmond’s hypothesis is that the drumming traditions were part of rituals associated with the cult of Cybele and related female deities. For a lot of her career she maintained a troupe of women drummers who re-enacted their understanding of archaic rituals around transforming consciousness and energy.
Sometimes I think the more we know, the less we know. We all comb history in an effort to understand ourselves.
Russell, ha! More of that ‘Goddess movement’ crap! [/deep and unrelenting sarcasm]
One of the best things about knowing more about the past is finding things that are useful in the present. I’ll bet she got a fair share of crap about what she was doing. From nous’ article
Finally, Gimbutas’ conclusions about Old Europe as a matristic but balanced (roughly egalitarian) civilization was apparently enough to set off alarm bells in the psyche of many male archaeologists and journalists, who reacted with angry charges such as “A Sexist View of Prehistory” (Brian Fagan) and “Gynosupremacism” (a journalist writing in the Chicago Tribune). Visceral feelings about the utter rightness of patriarchal culture and a male godhead are apparently no more uncommon in archaeology than elsewhere.
Russell, ha! More of that ‘Goddess movement’ crap! [/deep and unrelenting sarcasm]
One of the best things about knowing more about the past is finding things that are useful in the present. I’ll bet she got a fair share of crap about what she was doing. From nous’ article
Finally, Gimbutas’ conclusions about Old Europe as a matristic but balanced (roughly egalitarian) civilization was apparently enough to set off alarm bells in the psyche of many male archaeologists and journalists, who reacted with angry charges such as “A Sexist View of Prehistory” (Brian Fagan) and “Gynosupremacism” (a journalist writing in the Chicago Tribune). Visceral feelings about the utter rightness of patriarchal culture and a male godhead are apparently no more uncommon in archaeology than elsewhere.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
I know nothing about the period, but this article on weighing technology and proto-money suggests something about both the extent and speed of cultural communication.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-scrap-cash-bronze-age-witnessed.html
One thing that has shaped the way I write, especially here, is that I will ‘know’ something and in checking it out, I’ll find that things have flipped …
This.
The bronze age Eastern Med./Near East, at least, was actually strikingly globalized, in the era preceding the bronze age collapse. Lots of trade, diplomatic communication, etc.
I know nothing about the period, but this article on weighing technology and proto-money suggests something about both the extent and speed of cultural communication.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-scrap-cash-bronze-age-witnessed.html
One thing that has shaped the way I write, especially here, is that I will ‘know’ something and in checking it out, I’ll find that things have flipped …
This.
Just in case anyone missed this post from last year
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/06/1177-bc-the-year-civilization-collapsed.html
I linked to this lecture about bronze age globalization and collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4
Just in case anyone missed this post from last year
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/06/1177-bc-the-year-civilization-collapsed.html
I linked to this lecture about bronze age globalization and collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4
This article and attached discussions address some of the aspects of my question up-thread about how the Roman collapse affected western civilization.
“Commonly known history states that after the fall of the Roman Empire Western Europe went into a backward period of the dark ages not fully recovering until the renaissance. If so how was this Roman knowledge lost from the West for so long? Or is this understanding of history wrong?”
How was knowledge ‘lost’ after the fall of Rome?
This article and attached discussions address some of the aspects of my question up-thread about how the Roman collapse affected western civilization.
“Commonly known history states that after the fall of the Roman Empire Western Europe went into a backward period of the dark ages not fully recovering until the renaissance. If so how was this Roman knowledge lost from the West for so long? Or is this understanding of history wrong?”
How was knowledge ‘lost’ after the fall of Rome?
An important part in loss of written knowledge was the bottleneck of transcription from papyrus scrolls to parchment codices. Almost everything that did not make the transfer from one medium to the other got lost.
An important part in loss of written knowledge was the bottleneck of transcription from papyrus scrolls to parchment codices. Almost everything that did not make the transfer from one medium to the other got lost.
CharlesWT – I find it astonishing that the author of that post made only one passing reference to slavery in the whole of the discussion. Most modern historians seem to agree that the decline in administration and of big public works coincides with the collapse of the slave economy in Rome.
So one answer to your question might be that the knowledge and practices that people celebrate as the glory of Rome were not sustainable without the institution of slavery and imperial expansion, and the shift to a more local mode of organization on a feudal model was what could be sustained.
CharlesWT – I find it astonishing that the author of that post made only one passing reference to slavery in the whole of the discussion. Most modern historians seem to agree that the decline in administration and of big public works coincides with the collapse of the slave economy in Rome.
So one answer to your question might be that the knowledge and practices that people celebrate as the glory of Rome were not sustainable without the institution of slavery and imperial expansion, and the shift to a more local mode of organization on a feudal model was what could be sustained.
So one answer to your question might be that the knowledge and practices that people celebrate as the glory of Rome were not sustainable without the institution of slavery and imperial expansion
Although in that case it would be worth asking, is it that the economy could not be sustained without slavery and/or conquest (with then-available technology)? Or just that making the transition proved beyond their abilities?
I don’t know enough about the technological changes between Imperial Rome and the end of the feudal period to Europe to say. Pretty sure, for example, that Rome didn’t have wind power for grain mills and such. But whether that was the critical difference, I just don’t know.
I do know that, in some cases of economic and cultural change, the critical difference is the inability to make (often, the inability to see the need/desirability for making) the change to a visible alternative condition. Just look at Russia’s recurring failure to catch their economy up to Western Europe’s. It’s not that they don’t know how the end point works. It’s that they can’t see how to, or just don’t want to, get there from where they are.
So one answer to your question might be that the knowledge and practices that people celebrate as the glory of Rome were not sustainable without the institution of slavery and imperial expansion
Although in that case it would be worth asking, is it that the economy could not be sustained without slavery and/or conquest (with then-available technology)? Or just that making the transition proved beyond their abilities?
I don’t know enough about the technological changes between Imperial Rome and the end of the feudal period to Europe to say. Pretty sure, for example, that Rome didn’t have wind power for grain mills and such. But whether that was the critical difference, I just don’t know.
I do know that, in some cases of economic and cultural change, the critical difference is the inability to make (often, the inability to see the need/desirability for making) the change to a visible alternative condition. Just look at Russia’s recurring failure to catch their economy up to Western Europe’s. It’s not that they don’t know how the end point works. It’s that they can’t see how to, or just don’t want to, get there from where they are.
It’s that they can’t see how to, or just don’t want to, get there from where they are.
In part, for the ruling elites, it may be a matter of “Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
It’s that they can’t see how to, or just don’t want to, get there from where they are.
In part, for the ruling elites, it may be a matter of “Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
In part, for the ruling elites, it may be a matter of “Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
And, in current Russia, in part a matter of “I can retire in the West anyway. Quite comfortably, with my ill-gotten gains.” Putin isn’t the only oligarch with hundreds of millions stashed outside Russia.
In part, for the ruling elites, it may be a matter of “Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
And, in current Russia, in part a matter of “I can retire in the West anyway. Quite comfortably, with my ill-gotten gains.” Putin isn’t the only oligarch with hundreds of millions stashed outside Russia.
Just look at Russia’s recurring failure to catch their economy up to Western Europe’s. It’s not that they don’t know how the end point works. It’s that they can’t see how to, or just don’t want to, get there from where they are.
I tend to think that part of what is making it hard for Russia and other countries on the cusp of becoming a global economic power is the same sort of sustainability problem with regard to resource scarcity that put a crimp in Rome’s expansion. It’s not that Russia or China or Mexico or Brazil have to replicate the path to prosperity that the US and Western Europe took. It’s that they have to do that while also competing with those other countries for those same resources. And those countries are feeling the effects of that competition and having to solve their own sustainability problems.
I doubt it’s a matter of not seeing or not wanting. I think it’s a matter of them having access to a much smaller range of possible outcomes with lower potential for success and greater risk of failure. There is a Matthew Effect involved.
Just look at Russia’s recurring failure to catch their economy up to Western Europe’s. It’s not that they don’t know how the end point works. It’s that they can’t see how to, or just don’t want to, get there from where they are.
I tend to think that part of what is making it hard for Russia and other countries on the cusp of becoming a global economic power is the same sort of sustainability problem with regard to resource scarcity that put a crimp in Rome’s expansion. It’s not that Russia or China or Mexico or Brazil have to replicate the path to prosperity that the US and Western Europe took. It’s that they have to do that while also competing with those other countries for those same resources. And those countries are feeling the effects of that competition and having to solve their own sustainability problems.
I doubt it’s a matter of not seeing or not wanting. I think it’s a matter of them having access to a much smaller range of possible outcomes with lower potential for success and greater risk of failure. There is a Matthew Effect involved.
I tend to think that part of what is making it hard for Russia and other countries on the cusp of becoming a global economic power is the same sort of sustainability problem with regard to resource scarcity that put a crimp in Rome’s expansion. It’s not that Russia or China or Mexico or Brazil have to replicate the path to prosperity that the US and Western Europe took. It’s that they have to do that while also competing with those other countries for those same resources.
Maybe a part. But, I think, a small part. Places like Korea, or soon Vietnam, manage to make the technological leap that Russia has long since made. But they also make the step up to a generally Western economy. Not, by any means, Western cultures. But an economy where people can live comfortably, and have some chance of improving their lot over time thru effort.
Whereas in Russia, the only path forward is connections to those already in power. And the political culture is such that nobody expects anything but a kleptocracy — anything like government with priorities other than enriching the existing elites isn’t seen as an option.
As a result, people don’t bother to try. Efficiency isn’t worth any effort, so it doesn’t happen. It’s not that Russia lacks for natural resources. It’s that it doesn’t manage to exploit them at levels much of the rest of the world (and not just Europe!) has long since achieved.
I tend to think that part of what is making it hard for Russia and other countries on the cusp of becoming a global economic power is the same sort of sustainability problem with regard to resource scarcity that put a crimp in Rome’s expansion. It’s not that Russia or China or Mexico or Brazil have to replicate the path to prosperity that the US and Western Europe took. It’s that they have to do that while also competing with those other countries for those same resources.
Maybe a part. But, I think, a small part. Places like Korea, or soon Vietnam, manage to make the technological leap that Russia has long since made. But they also make the step up to a generally Western economy. Not, by any means, Western cultures. But an economy where people can live comfortably, and have some chance of improving their lot over time thru effort.
Whereas in Russia, the only path forward is connections to those already in power. And the political culture is such that nobody expects anything but a kleptocracy — anything like government with priorities other than enriching the existing elites isn’t seen as an option.
As a result, people don’t bother to try. Efficiency isn’t worth any effort, so it doesn’t happen. It’s not that Russia lacks for natural resources. It’s that it doesn’t manage to exploit them at levels much of the rest of the world (and not just Europe!) has long since achieved.
Part of Russia’s problem is that it tried to do top-down what China inadvertently did bottom up.
Part of Russia’s problem is that it tried to do top-down what China inadvertently did bottom up.
maybe middle-down. the top is doing just fine in Russia.
maybe middle-down. the top is doing just fine in Russia.
the top is doing just fine in Russia.
Well, as long as they are extremely careful to stay on Putin’s good side.
the top is doing just fine in Russia.
Well, as long as they are extremely careful to stay on Putin’s good side.
Any discussion of what happened in Russia has to include some discussion of vulture capitalism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/25/moscow-on-thames-russia-billionaires-soviet-donors-conservatives
Any discussion of what happened in Russia has to include some discussion of vulture capitalism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/25/moscow-on-thames-russia-billionaires-soviet-donors-conservatives
What wj said. Russia has no lack of natural resources; quite the opposite. And a well educated population in world terms for at least half a century.
What wj said. Russia has no lack of natural resources; quite the opposite. And a well educated population in world terms for at least half a century.
Missed this when it came out last month.
Great article, and a reminder of what has and hasn’t changed in the last fifty years.
The Girl in the Kent State Photo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/04/19/girl-kent-state-photo-lifelong-burden-being-national-symbol/
… Many people refused to believe the nearly 6-foot-tall girl with the long, flowing hair and the mournful face was only 14. Her family received calls and letters calling her a drug addict, a tramp, a communist. The governor of Florida said she was “part of a nationally organized conspiracy of professional agitators” that was “responsible for the students’ death.” While some people saw her as a symbol of the national conscience, some Kent State students expressed resentment about her fame, saying she wasn’t even a protester.
Back in Kent, Ohio, local business owners ran an ad thanking the National Guard. Mail poured in to the mayor’s office, blaming “dirty hippies,” “longhairs” and “outside agitators” for the violence. Some Kent residents raised four fingers when they passed each other in the street, a silent signal that meant, “At least we got four of them.” Nixon issued a statement saying that the students’ actions had invited the tragedy. Privately, he called them “bums.” And a Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans blamed the students for their own deaths; only 11 percent blamed the National Guard….
Missed this when it came out last month.
Great article, and a reminder of what has and hasn’t changed in the last fifty years.
The Girl in the Kent State Photo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/04/19/girl-kent-state-photo-lifelong-burden-being-national-symbol/
… Many people refused to believe the nearly 6-foot-tall girl with the long, flowing hair and the mournful face was only 14. Her family received calls and letters calling her a drug addict, a tramp, a communist. The governor of Florida said she was “part of a nationally organized conspiracy of professional agitators” that was “responsible for the students’ death.” While some people saw her as a symbol of the national conscience, some Kent State students expressed resentment about her fame, saying she wasn’t even a protester.
Back in Kent, Ohio, local business owners ran an ad thanking the National Guard. Mail poured in to the mayor’s office, blaming “dirty hippies,” “longhairs” and “outside agitators” for the violence. Some Kent residents raised four fingers when they passed each other in the street, a silent signal that meant, “At least we got four of them.” Nixon issued a statement saying that the students’ actions had invited the tragedy. Privately, he called them “bums.” And a Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans blamed the students for their own deaths; only 11 percent blamed the National Guard….
I think the major obstacle to economic growth in Russia is corruption. Commerce doesn’t work if government can steal your stuff.
Russia ranks 129th on the Corruption Perceptions Index. The USA is a disappointing 25th, which ought to elicit restrictions on political finance and lobbying, but won’t.
I think the major obstacle to economic growth in Russia is corruption. Commerce doesn’t work if government can steal your stuff.
Russia ranks 129th on the Corruption Perceptions Index. The USA is a disappointing 25th, which ought to elicit restrictions on political finance and lobbying, but won’t.
Corruption seems to be OK in economic terms, too, so long as it’s purposeful.
Korea under the Park dictatorship was certainly corrupt in conventional terms, but hugely successful in building an economy from next to nothing.
Corruption seems to be OK in economic terms, too, so long as it’s purposeful.
Korea under the Park dictatorship was certainly corrupt in conventional terms, but hugely successful in building an economy from next to nothing.
Getting corruption to be “purposeful” seems to be mostly a matter of luck. And definitely not the way the smart money would bet either.
Getting corruption to be “purposeful” seems to be mostly a matter of luck. And definitely not the way the smart money would bet either.
Great article, and a reminder of what has and hasn’t changed in the last fifty years.
Wow. The governor of Florida, even.
Great article, and a reminder of what has and hasn’t changed in the last fifty years.
Wow. The governor of Florida, even.
the Corruption Perceptions Index
It seems that many of the nations at the top of the list are social democracies. Very strange!
the Corruption Perceptions Index
It seems that many of the nations at the top of the list are social democracies. Very strange!
the Corruption Perceptions Index
It seems that many of the nations at the top of the list are social democracies. Very strange!
Interesting, too, that the libertarian heaven of Somalia ranks as the most corrupt.
the Corruption Perceptions Index
It seems that many of the nations at the top of the list are social democracies. Very strange!
Interesting, too, that the libertarian heaven of Somalia ranks as the most corrupt.
Russia is government by mafia. Somalia is government by street gang.
“Purposeful corruption” is an interesting concept, but on the whole I’d prefer purpose sans corruption.
Russia is government by mafia. Somalia is government by street gang.
“Purposeful corruption” is an interesting concept, but on the whole I’d prefer purpose sans corruption.
It’s a half formed idea, no more than that.
Corruption is a bad thing, and tends to be destructive of economies, but in this case clearly not.
It’s a half formed idea, no more than that.
Corruption is a bad thing, and tends to be destructive of economies, but in this case clearly not.
Since this is an open thread, I wonder what the commentariat think of this piece I have just read, and found interesting. It’s called Elena Ferrante and the Politics of Deference – Rehabilitating the concept of the asshole. I’m all for such rehabilitation, always allowing for linguistic differences between cultures (to me they are arseholes), but don’t be misled: the piece is not really about the outing of the identity of Elena Ferrante so much as it is about the responsibility to retain the capacity for critical thought (loosely speaking, to retain the ability to call her outer an asshole, as opposed to someone guilty of “part of the continuum of violence against women and girls”).
The following quote deals with such issues specifically, but he does go on to talk about the general principle of being able to think critically about one’s ideological allies, as opposed to what he calls “The politics of Deference”. The piece is not long, and as I say, I think it is an interesting read.
I think one can simultaneously find exposing Elena Ferrante distasteful, support the effort to stop violence against women, and decline to see the former as an example of the latter. I think you can understand that sexual assault too often goes unpunished, and that we should err on the side of believing those victims that come forward, and think that the Rolling Stone University of Virginia debacle could have been prevented with more appropriate skepticism and vetting from the beginning. I think that you can see that Hillary Clinton has been subject to noxious sexism her entire career, oppose that sexism, and recognize that frivolous accusations of sexism are constantly used to shield her from legitimate criticism. I’m asking that we be free to utilize our judgment to decide which claims of bigotry are credible and which aren’t without being accused of being on the wrong side. I am arguing, in simple terms, for critical thinking among those who broadly share the goals of social liberalism and social justice. I am arguing that our commitment to fighting sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry and injustice can’t prevent us from being discriminating about which particular accusations are more or less credible. I am arguing that being an ally in a fight doesn’t and can’t mean that we abandon our right and responsibility to question or criticize those who claim to be engaged in that fight, when it seems appropriate to do so.
http://www.thetowner.com/elena-ferrante-politics-deference/
Since this is an open thread, I wonder what the commentariat think of this piece I have just read, and found interesting. It’s called Elena Ferrante and the Politics of Deference – Rehabilitating the concept of the asshole. I’m all for such rehabilitation, always allowing for linguistic differences between cultures (to me they are arseholes), but don’t be misled: the piece is not really about the outing of the identity of Elena Ferrante so much as it is about the responsibility to retain the capacity for critical thought (loosely speaking, to retain the ability to call her outer an asshole, as opposed to someone guilty of “part of the continuum of violence against women and girls”).
The following quote deals with such issues specifically, but he does go on to talk about the general principle of being able to think critically about one’s ideological allies, as opposed to what he calls “The politics of Deference”. The piece is not long, and as I say, I think it is an interesting read.
I think one can simultaneously find exposing Elena Ferrante distasteful, support the effort to stop violence against women, and decline to see the former as an example of the latter. I think you can understand that sexual assault too often goes unpunished, and that we should err on the side of believing those victims that come forward, and think that the Rolling Stone University of Virginia debacle could have been prevented with more appropriate skepticism and vetting from the beginning. I think that you can see that Hillary Clinton has been subject to noxious sexism her entire career, oppose that sexism, and recognize that frivolous accusations of sexism are constantly used to shield her from legitimate criticism. I’m asking that we be free to utilize our judgment to decide which claims of bigotry are credible and which aren’t without being accused of being on the wrong side. I am arguing, in simple terms, for critical thinking among those who broadly share the goals of social liberalism and social justice. I am arguing that our commitment to fighting sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry and injustice can’t prevent us from being discriminating about which particular accusations are more or less credible. I am arguing that being an ally in a fight doesn’t and can’t mean that we abandon our right and responsibility to question or criticize those who claim to be engaged in that fight, when it seems appropriate to do so.
http://www.thetowner.com/elena-ferrante-politics-deference/
Since this is an open thread, I wonder what the commentariat think of this piece I have just read, and found interesting.
I don’t know why the argument isn’t already obvious to any thinking person. That’s not a criticism of the piece, but of the circumstance it describes.
I have no familiarity with the author, so I can’t say whether it’s written as a bogus defense against valid criticism, but taking it a face value and assuming good faith, I have to agree.
Since this is an open thread, I wonder what the commentariat think of this piece I have just read, and found interesting.
I don’t know why the argument isn’t already obvious to any thinking person. That’s not a criticism of the piece, but of the circumstance it describes.
I have no familiarity with the author, so I can’t say whether it’s written as a bogus defense against valid criticism, but taking it a face value and assuming good faith, I have to agree.
Herewith, the McKTex kiss of death: it’s an excellent article, good advice, long overdue, and unlikely to have any meaningful effect among its intended audience. Thanks for bringing up.
Herewith, the McKTex kiss of death: it’s an excellent article, good advice, long overdue, and unlikely to have any meaningful effect among its intended audience. Thanks for bringing up.
Never mind!
Never mind!
so does this mean it’s OK to call people assholes, as long as we don’t call them racists?
😉
I agree with basically everything in the article, agree with hairshirt’s thought that it should be obvious to folks but also note that it is not obvious to many folks.
It’s also an argument that is likely to appeal to folks who can’t get their heads around the idea of structural forms of discrimination. Which is not what the author is going for, but folks will use whatever is handy.
It’s both. There are deep patterns of discrimination baked into social and cultural institutions and practices, and there are people who are simply assholes with no particular agenda other than being obnoxious and belligerent.
You can give undue focus to one side of that or the other. Some knees just want to jerk.
Thanks for sharing this, the site as a whole is really good. You always find good material, GFTNC – have you ever thought of curating a blogroll?
so does this mean it’s OK to call people assholes, as long as we don’t call them racists?
😉
I agree with basically everything in the article, agree with hairshirt’s thought that it should be obvious to folks but also note that it is not obvious to many folks.
It’s also an argument that is likely to appeal to folks who can’t get their heads around the idea of structural forms of discrimination. Which is not what the author is going for, but folks will use whatever is handy.
It’s both. There are deep patterns of discrimination baked into social and cultural institutions and practices, and there are people who are simply assholes with no particular agenda other than being obnoxious and belligerent.
You can give undue focus to one side of that or the other. Some knees just want to jerk.
Thanks for sharing this, the site as a whole is really good. You always find good material, GFTNC – have you ever thought of curating a blogroll?
Hey, here’s something nice. The composer is a long-time friend of mine. As an aside, it’s always amazing to me that I know people who do stuff at this level. It fills me with pride and humility, all at the same time.
It’s short, maybe 3 or 4 minutes. Take a break from the BS and treat yourself to a moment of beauty.
Enjoy!
Hey, here’s something nice. The composer is a long-time friend of mine. As an aside, it’s always amazing to me that I know people who do stuff at this level. It fills me with pride and humility, all at the same time.
It’s short, maybe 3 or 4 minutes. Take a break from the BS and treat yourself to a moment of beauty.
Enjoy!
yes indeed. that was very nice.
yes indeed. that was very nice.
Take a break from the BS
I hasten to add – by ‘the BS’ I do not mean the conversation here on ObWi.
Take a break from the BS
I hasten to add – by ‘the BS’ I do not mean the conversation here on ObWi.
It was a beautiful break in the day. Thanks russell.
It was a beautiful break in the day. Thanks russell.
Might be off-topic now, but one of the suggested videos for me on LJ’s bronze age collapse video above was this one on ancient European genetics. All very interesting. Specifically at the 3/4 point or so, he goes over some fairly recent (2015ish) research which shows some evidence for a big migration of so-called “Yamnaya” people from the Pontic steppe around 2500 BC. Which definitely supports Gimbutas’ hypothesis about the origins of Indo-European, if not the speculation about how egalitarian the prior European cultures were.
Also RE: egalitarianism, one thing that didn’t really come up above, but is very interesting IMO, is that some cultures seem to sort of time-share *both* arrangements, often in some kind of ritual way. I think I got this from a David Graeber talk (maybe here? I’m not going to watch the whole thing right now to see).
So you might have a hunter-gathering people who break up into small hunting bands for most of the year. And there’s a very hierarchical, authoritarian structure within those bands. But then they all migrate to one place now and then for a big quasi-religious festival (also to trade, find husbands and wives, etc.) where the normal rules go out the window and the hierarchy/patriarchy/authority are all very purposefully ignored and subverted.
There are some extent examples of that kind of thing in various peoples around the world, but Graeber also thought things like the Roman Saturnalia were at least vestigial examples of this.
I can’t remember if this was Graeber’s take or mine, but I think the implications of people being able to experience both approaches and appreciate them in contrast are intriguing. Maybe there’s an answer in there about making egalitarianism more stable.
Might be off-topic now, but one of the suggested videos for me on LJ’s bronze age collapse video above was this one on ancient European genetics. All very interesting. Specifically at the 3/4 point or so, he goes over some fairly recent (2015ish) research which shows some evidence for a big migration of so-called “Yamnaya” people from the Pontic steppe around 2500 BC. Which definitely supports Gimbutas’ hypothesis about the origins of Indo-European, if not the speculation about how egalitarian the prior European cultures were.
Also RE: egalitarianism, one thing that didn’t really come up above, but is very interesting IMO, is that some cultures seem to sort of time-share *both* arrangements, often in some kind of ritual way. I think I got this from a David Graeber talk (maybe here? I’m not going to watch the whole thing right now to see).
So you might have a hunter-gathering people who break up into small hunting bands for most of the year. And there’s a very hierarchical, authoritarian structure within those bands. But then they all migrate to one place now and then for a big quasi-religious festival (also to trade, find husbands and wives, etc.) where the normal rules go out the window and the hierarchy/patriarchy/authority are all very purposefully ignored and subverted.
There are some extent examples of that kind of thing in various peoples around the world, but Graeber also thought things like the Roman Saturnalia were at least vestigial examples of this.
I can’t remember if this was Graeber’s take or mine, but I think the implications of people being able to experience both approaches and appreciate them in contrast are intriguing. Maybe there’s an answer in there about making egalitarianism more stable.
Just a few quick comments. Jack, the off topic is almost always on-topic here. If you find those links and want to guestpost something, let me know.
About GftNC’s link
Actually, I think some commenters here may be familiar with other pieces by the writer, which display some of the same failings as the article, though much was on his blog, which he has made private.
I don’t want to go into detail because I don’t want to start a discussion where I can’t keep up my side of it, so just some very brief observations
The Ferrante affair is from 2016, a couple of major earthquakes, more mass shootings than I can count and a pandemic ago. The journalist who outed her is an asshole, but I don’t think that debates on internet behavior should be based on what asshole’s do. Or (more importantly for non-assholes) how people react to said asshole’s behavior. (I’d also note that there is a school of engagement that aims to get the other side angry so they overreach. Almost every fight scene in a movie is based on this–get the other person emotional and you will triumph, yay! But not so good for the retention of civility)
If the content of the piece is so anodyne that, as hsh noted, should be obvious to any thinking person, you have to ask yourself why the writer feels it is so important to convey it. Wouldn’t it make sense to try and map out where people agree and then work on the differences, rather than suggest that this is some new thing? Doing the Jordan Peterson thing is a bit passé.
And getting back to assholes, google is probably your friend here. I think that the author got banged up on a lot of blogs that I read and though I did get a sense of a bit of a pile-on, I feel like he couldn’t bring himself to admit when he was wrong. Which is a recipe for disaster, imo.
Just a few quick comments. Jack, the off topic is almost always on-topic here. If you find those links and want to guestpost something, let me know.
About GftNC’s link
Actually, I think some commenters here may be familiar with other pieces by the writer, which display some of the same failings as the article, though much was on his blog, which he has made private.
I don’t want to go into detail because I don’t want to start a discussion where I can’t keep up my side of it, so just some very brief observations
The Ferrante affair is from 2016, a couple of major earthquakes, more mass shootings than I can count and a pandemic ago. The journalist who outed her is an asshole, but I don’t think that debates on internet behavior should be based on what asshole’s do. Or (more importantly for non-assholes) how people react to said asshole’s behavior. (I’d also note that there is a school of engagement that aims to get the other side angry so they overreach. Almost every fight scene in a movie is based on this–get the other person emotional and you will triumph, yay! But not so good for the retention of civility)
If the content of the piece is so anodyne that, as hsh noted, should be obvious to any thinking person, you have to ask yourself why the writer feels it is so important to convey it. Wouldn’t it make sense to try and map out where people agree and then work on the differences, rather than suggest that this is some new thing? Doing the Jordan Peterson thing is a bit passé.
And getting back to assholes, google is probably your friend here. I think that the author got banged up on a lot of blogs that I read and though I did get a sense of a bit of a pile-on, I feel like he couldn’t bring himself to admit when he was wrong. Which is a recipe for disaster, imo.
For wj.
For wj.
As to the rhetorical ploy represented (in GftNC’s link) by the fantastic notion that the concept of the asshole ever fell out of use or favor, and thus needs rehabilitation, Aaron James’s 2014 book Assholes: A Theory, is currently ranked 110,514 in Books on Amazon, while deBoer’s The Cult of Smart, published last fall, weighs in at 426,543.
As to the rhetorical ploy represented (in GftNC’s link) by the fantastic notion that the concept of the asshole ever fell out of use or favor, and thus needs rehabilitation, Aaron James’s 2014 book Assholes: A Theory, is currently ranked 110,514 in Books on Amazon, while deBoer’s The Cult of Smart, published last fall, weighs in at 426,543.
Headline from JanieM’s link
More than 100 Republican former officials to seek reforms, threaten new party
That ambiguous reading of ‘threaten’ is great. ‘Eh, youse guys, you wanna make a new party? Howzabout we throw a new party on your faces, capish?’
Headline from JanieM’s link
More than 100 Republican former officials to seek reforms, threaten new party
That ambiguous reading of ‘threaten’ is great. ‘Eh, youse guys, you wanna make a new party? Howzabout we throw a new party on your faces, capish?’
more than 100?!
wow.
they could possibly elect a county clerk somewhere.
more than 100?!
wow.
they could possibly elect a county clerk somewhere.
Republican cancel culture run amok:
Republican cancel culture run amok:
If the Rs want a law against telling lies in public, bring it on.
Seriously, I think a law against lies is needed now that the internet has made it so easy to spread falsehoods. It could be quite simple: you can say anything you like if you flag it as fiction or parody or humour, but if you represent it as fact it has to be true.
If the Rs want a law against telling lies in public, bring it on.
Seriously, I think a law against lies is needed now that the internet has made it so easy to spread falsehoods. It could be quite simple: you can say anything you like if you flag it as fiction or parody or humour, but if you represent it as fact it has to be true.
Liz Cheney got officially ousted from her party leadership position. The voting procedure got changed so we do not know what the exact result was, just that Cheney lost.
Quite ironic that she got kicked for probably the only decent thing she ever did in politics.
Liz Cheney got officially ousted from her party leadership position. The voting procedure got changed so we do not know what the exact result was, just that Cheney lost.
Quite ironic that she got kicked for probably the only decent thing she ever did in politics.
Seriously, I think a law against lies is needed now that the internet has made it so easy to spread falsehoods.
So, we need a Ministry of Truth?
Seriously, I think a law against lies is needed now that the internet has made it so easy to spread falsehoods.
So, we need a Ministry of Truth?
a law against lies
So, we need a Ministry of Truth?
Over here we already have the First Amendment…
a law against lies
So, we need a Ministry of Truth?
Over here we already have the First Amendment…
More than 100 Republican former officials to seek reforms, threaten new party
I know I’m not alone. But it’s nice to get occasional confirmation.
As for cleek’s: they could possibly elect a county clerk somewhere, I expect quite a bit more than that. There are, admittedly, a depressingly large number of cult members. And also, of politicians who simply have no core — they’ll say or do anything to (they hope) hold power. But a large number isn’t 100%. And a lot of those who still care about reality do get elected.
At the moment, I expect the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. The only question is, how soon? And does it happen before or after the death of the cult’s leader — which his followers refuse to believe either. (Not sure whether they will go for “fake news” or resurrection.)
More than 100 Republican former officials to seek reforms, threaten new party
I know I’m not alone. But it’s nice to get occasional confirmation.
As for cleek’s: they could possibly elect a county clerk somewhere, I expect quite a bit more than that. There are, admittedly, a depressingly large number of cult members. And also, of politicians who simply have no core — they’ll say or do anything to (they hope) hold power. But a large number isn’t 100%. And a lot of those who still care about reality do get elected.
At the moment, I expect the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. The only question is, how soon? And does it happen before or after the death of the cult’s leader — which his followers refuse to believe either. (Not sure whether they will go for “fake news” or resurrection.)
wj – I hope but doubt it will happen fast enough to rescue the country.
2022 elections will be a wild ride, and 2024 may well see all GQP-controlled state legislatures simply refuse to certify election results they don’t like…
…with SCOTUS upholding them.
wj – I hope but doubt it will happen fast enough to rescue the country.
2022 elections will be a wild ride, and 2024 may well see all GQP-controlled state legislatures simply refuse to certify election results they don’t like…
…with SCOTUS upholding them.
For cleek (et al.):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/12/miles-taylor-100-republicans-third-party/
You may feel, as Sargent says, that a good cause deserves better advocates. But what is on offer, at the moment, is a commitment to accept the results of an election. And that, not agreement on policy, is the critical need right now.
For cleek (et al.):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/12/miles-taylor-100-republicans-third-party/
You may feel, as Sargent says, that a good cause deserves better advocates. But what is on offer, at the moment, is a commitment to accept the results of an election. And that, not agreement on policy, is the critical need right now.
a commitment to accept the results of an election.
that’ll do.
absent that, we are in the world of government without the consent of the governed. I’m not sure what things look like at that point.
given our understanding of what we are about as a polity, minority rule is not going to be sustainable.
policy discussions are fine. not accepting the outcome of elections is not going to be fine. if that is where the (R)’s are going to hang their hat, there is going to be trouble.
a commitment to accept the results of an election.
that’ll do.
absent that, we are in the world of government without the consent of the governed. I’m not sure what things look like at that point.
given our understanding of what we are about as a polity, minority rule is not going to be sustainable.
policy discussions are fine. not accepting the outcome of elections is not going to be fine. if that is where the (R)’s are going to hang their hat, there is going to be trouble.
One interesting facet of the vote to remove Cheney: instead of being a secret ballot (as is usual), it was done as a voice vote. Which suggests that McCarthy, at least, was aware that his spineless colleagues might well vote to keep her. Again. IF they didn’t have to stand up for their positions. Profiles in courage everywhere….
One interesting facet of the vote to remove Cheney: instead of being a secret ballot (as is usual), it was done as a voice vote. Which suggests that McCarthy, at least, was aware that his spineless colleagues might well vote to keep her. Again. IF they didn’t have to stand up for their positions. Profiles in courage everywhere….
just posting this for the lulz.
Jeff Bezos is getting a new boat. It will cost half a billion dollars, and comes with a second, support yacht. The support yacht has a helipad.
god forbid we should raise taxes on the wealthiest, think of the impact on the super-yacht industry.
just posting this for the lulz.
Jeff Bezos is getting a new boat. It will cost half a billion dollars, and comes with a second, support yacht. The support yacht has a helipad.
god forbid we should raise taxes on the wealthiest, think of the impact on the super-yacht industry.
A very quick note on that Towner article I linked. I pretty much agreed with hsh when he speculated about it being a pre-emptive strike to excuse the writer, and to what russell said about systemic prejudice, and knew there was a good chance it might provoke a bit of controversy (McK’s approval was hardly surprising).
But I just wanted to say the following, briefly (briefly because I essentially posted and ran: I have just done a flying two day trip to the North Country to take care of some business, and have not really had a chance since posting to come back to it):
1. I had no idea who the writer was, or what his history was, and obvs I don’t check this with everything I link, which I am sure you all understand. But I thought, whatever his history was (and I will search it, because now I am interested), the piece on its face was good enough to stand up.
2. If it turns out (which I am quite prepared to believe) that he himself is a considerable arsehole, I nonetheless thought the argument was well and pithily expressed. And, contrary to what some of you have said (that it – the argument – should be so obvious as to not need expressing), I actually think it does need to be expressed. I have myself brushed against the fringes of this phenomenon, enough to have occasionally wondered if it was worth the trouble (in discussion) of analysing whether a particular pundit or writer was really a bigot, or whether they were just being an arsehole. I’m happy to say that I have never been silent to avoid trouble and save the peace, but I can see how it could happen.
Anyway, I’m glad if it was of any interest to anybody, and I will even weather the McKinney kiss of death!
A very quick note on that Towner article I linked. I pretty much agreed with hsh when he speculated about it being a pre-emptive strike to excuse the writer, and to what russell said about systemic prejudice, and knew there was a good chance it might provoke a bit of controversy (McK’s approval was hardly surprising).
But I just wanted to say the following, briefly (briefly because I essentially posted and ran: I have just done a flying two day trip to the North Country to take care of some business, and have not really had a chance since posting to come back to it):
1. I had no idea who the writer was, or what his history was, and obvs I don’t check this with everything I link, which I am sure you all understand. But I thought, whatever his history was (and I will search it, because now I am interested), the piece on its face was good enough to stand up.
2. If it turns out (which I am quite prepared to believe) that he himself is a considerable arsehole, I nonetheless thought the argument was well and pithily expressed. And, contrary to what some of you have said (that it – the argument – should be so obvious as to not need expressing), I actually think it does need to be expressed. I have myself brushed against the fringes of this phenomenon, enough to have occasionally wondered if it was worth the trouble (in discussion) of analysing whether a particular pundit or writer was really a bigot, or whether they were just being an arsehole. I’m happy to say that I have never been silent to avoid trouble and save the peace, but I can see how it could happen.
Anyway, I’m glad if it was of any interest to anybody, and I will even weather the McKinney kiss of death!
I actually think it does need to be expressed.
agreed
I actually think it does need to be expressed.
agreed
apologies for the serial posts, but I’m still shaking my damned head about the yacht with a support yacht (with a helipad).
is it just me, or is Bezos auditioning to be the next Bond villain?
or, could it be….?
apologies for the serial posts, but I’m still shaking my damned head about the yacht with a support yacht (with a helipad).
is it just me, or is Bezos auditioning to be the next Bond villain?
or, could it be….?
So, we need a Ministry of Truth?
No, courts decide what is true.
So, we need a Ministry of Truth?
No, courts decide what is true.
*Major Change in Topic Warning*
Does anyone here suspect this Colonial Pipeline thing is in any way approved by the Putin regime? It seems like a great way to undermine faith in Biden and generally sow discord in these United States – another monkey wrench to throw into the works. Perhaps even a pilot program for future cyber attacks.
Also, too, that pipeline runs within a mile or so of my house. I drive by the big tank farm almost daily. So far, no gas shortages at the northern end, thankfully.
*Major Change in Topic Warning*
Does anyone here suspect this Colonial Pipeline thing is in any way approved by the Putin regime? It seems like a great way to undermine faith in Biden and generally sow discord in these United States – another monkey wrench to throw into the works. Perhaps even a pilot program for future cyber attacks.
Also, too, that pipeline runs within a mile or so of my house. I drive by the big tank farm almost daily. So far, no gas shortages at the northern end, thankfully.
Bezos’ yacht is being built in the Netherlands. Wonder how much of that will trickle down to Dutchmarbel…
I grew up in a town whose main industry was maritime building. We had a luxury yacht builder in town that employed about 100 people as well as a few local professional contractors (naval architects and the like). The company has since moved to the UK and thence to the Netherlands.
The story of owner excess that most stuck with me… I remember that one particular owner brought in his yacht for renovations. (It was small by today’s luxury yacht standards, only being large enough to have one car on either side of the deck so that they could be lowered by winch to the dock regardless of which direction the yacht was berthed – no helipads, and no turning into Voltron or whatever they do now.) The carpenters spent days in one of the cabins bookmatching the solid Purple Heart paneling on the walls. When the owner came for a progress check, he thought the wood was too dark for the room his daughter would be sleeping in, so he had the workers leave all the paneling, but paint over it with pink.
Bezos’ yacht is being built in the Netherlands. Wonder how much of that will trickle down to Dutchmarbel…
I grew up in a town whose main industry was maritime building. We had a luxury yacht builder in town that employed about 100 people as well as a few local professional contractors (naval architects and the like). The company has since moved to the UK and thence to the Netherlands.
The story of owner excess that most stuck with me… I remember that one particular owner brought in his yacht for renovations. (It was small by today’s luxury yacht standards, only being large enough to have one car on either side of the deck so that they could be lowered by winch to the dock regardless of which direction the yacht was berthed – no helipads, and no turning into Voltron or whatever they do now.) The carpenters spent days in one of the cabins bookmatching the solid Purple Heart paneling on the walls. When the owner came for a progress check, he thought the wood was too dark for the room his daughter would be sleeping in, so he had the workers leave all the paneling, but paint over it with pink.
When the owner came for a progress check, he thought the wood was too dark for the room his daughter would be sleeping in, so he had the workers leave all the paneling, but paint over it with pink.
This isn’t excess so much as a straight up crime against craftsmanship and nature.
I think one of the most corrosive aspects of money worship/”American-style-capitalism” whatever is the whole idea of transactionalism. That just being able to pay for something somehow gives you the right to do whatever you want.
Not “whatever you want” in the sense of “murder someone and get away with it” (though there’s plenty of that too), but stuff like this. Or that couple who made the news early on in the pandemic for filling up their shopping cart with all the steaks in the supermarket. Or abusing wait staff. Or the random article I read the other day about people who order super-specific custom Starbucks drinks with 29 ingredients.
Speaking of assholes…
When the owner came for a progress check, he thought the wood was too dark for the room his daughter would be sleeping in, so he had the workers leave all the paneling, but paint over it with pink.
This isn’t excess so much as a straight up crime against craftsmanship and nature.
I think one of the most corrosive aspects of money worship/”American-style-capitalism” whatever is the whole idea of transactionalism. That just being able to pay for something somehow gives you the right to do whatever you want.
Not “whatever you want” in the sense of “murder someone and get away with it” (though there’s plenty of that too), but stuff like this. Or that couple who made the news early on in the pandemic for filling up their shopping cart with all the steaks in the supermarket. Or abusing wait staff. Or the random article I read the other day about people who order super-specific custom Starbucks drinks with 29 ingredients.
Speaking of assholes…
IMO, the 100 Republican military wankers who just signed a letter outlining what’s little more than a bulletin of Fox News stories cancel out 100 never-Trumpers.
70M morons voted for Trump.
2/3 of Republicans think Biden is illegitimate.
gonna take something seismic to shake that faith loose.
IMO, the 100 Republican military wankers who just signed a letter outlining what’s little more than a bulletin of Fox News stories cancel out 100 never-Trumpers.
70M morons voted for Trump.
2/3 of Republicans think Biden is illegitimate.
gonna take something seismic to shake that faith loose.
@hsh (2:23): This was a recent, very interesting discussion about cybersecurity with, among others, Angus King, who’s on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I happened to be in the car that day and heard most of it.
@hsh (2:23): This was a recent, very interesting discussion about cybersecurity with, among others, Angus King, who’s on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I happened to be in the car that day and heard most of it.
The company has since moved to the UK and thence to the Netherlands.
Perhaps once burned twice warry. I remember the luxury tax on yachts some decades ago.
The company has since moved to the UK and thence to the Netherlands.
Perhaps once burned twice warry. I remember the luxury tax on yachts some decades ago.
Or that couple who made the news early on in the pandemic for filling up their shopping cart with all the steaks in the supermarket.
That happens when you don’t allow the price of some to go up when its value goes up.
As for luxury yachts, I rather the rich spent their money on them rather than that other luxury good, politicians.
Or that couple who made the news early on in the pandemic for filling up their shopping cart with all the steaks in the supermarket.
That happens when you don’t allow the price of some to go up when its value goes up.
As for luxury yachts, I rather the rich spent their money on them rather than that other luxury good, politicians.
so he had the workers leave all the paneling, but paint over it with pink.
I once was hired to paint a kitchen full of beautiful cherry wood cabinets white. I needed the money so I did it, but it was a freaking crime.
I remember the luxury tax on yachts some decades ago.
Luxury taxes and tariffs were what we ran the country on, back in the days of the sainted founders. Personal coaches (not commercial wagons), booze, tobacco, sugar. Higher tax rate for coaches with four wheels, lower rate for two-wheelers.
Somehow we survived it.
so he had the workers leave all the paneling, but paint over it with pink.
I once was hired to paint a kitchen full of beautiful cherry wood cabinets white. I needed the money so I did it, but it was a freaking crime.
I remember the luxury tax on yachts some decades ago.
Luxury taxes and tariffs were what we ran the country on, back in the days of the sainted founders. Personal coaches (not commercial wagons), booze, tobacco, sugar. Higher tax rate for coaches with four wheels, lower rate for two-wheelers.
Somehow we survived it.
That happens when you don’t allow the price of some to go up when its value goes up.
Or, it happens when people are greedy jerks.
That happens when you don’t allow the price of some to go up when its value goes up.
Or, it happens when people are greedy jerks.
Perhaps once burned twice warry. I remember the luxury tax on yachts some decades ago.
Nope. Nobody who bought a yacht from them gave a damn about the 10% surcharge any more than they cared about the cost of the paneling they were painting over. These weren’t $100,000 boats. They did boats that cost millions and had rolling budgets. You didn’t come to them with a budget, you came with an idea and a statement to make.
Perhaps once burned twice warry. I remember the luxury tax on yachts some decades ago.
Nope. Nobody who bought a yacht from them gave a damn about the 10% surcharge any more than they cared about the cost of the paneling they were painting over. These weren’t $100,000 boats. They did boats that cost millions and had rolling budgets. You didn’t come to them with a budget, you came with an idea and a statement to make.
Personal coaches (not commercial wagons), booze, tobacco, sugar. Higher tax rate for coaches with four wheels, lower rate for two-wheelers.
Politicians are always coming up with stupid ways to tax people. I think it was in England that, at one time, they taxed windows because they were easy to see and count. The result was that people built houses with few or no windows and bricked up the existing windows. The result was detrimental to people’s health and wellbeing.
Personal coaches (not commercial wagons), booze, tobacco, sugar. Higher tax rate for coaches with four wheels, lower rate for two-wheelers.
Politicians are always coming up with stupid ways to tax people. I think it was in England that, at one time, they taxed windows because they were easy to see and count. The result was that people built houses with few or no windows and bricked up the existing windows. The result was detrimental to people’s health and wellbeing.
A champagne tax was introduced in Germany (the 2nd Reich), so rich people would pay their (highly visible) part in the naval build-up. That fleet ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow, we still pay the champagne tax a century later (at least those that drink that stuff do).
A champagne tax was introduced in Germany (the 2nd Reich), so rich people would pay their (highly visible) part in the naval build-up. That fleet ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow, we still pay the champagne tax a century later (at least those that drink that stuff do).
what’s stupid about taxing luxuries?
the people who can afford luxuries can afford the taxes. people who can’t afford luxuries, and would suffer the most negative impact from taxes in general, wouldn’t be taxed. luxury goods are by definition optional in the first place, if you really really really don’t want to pay the tax, you can choose to not buy the luxury good.
I’m missing the stupid part.
Is there any tax whatsoever that would be acceptable to libertarians? if not then maybe we can all just stipulate that any tax is going to be terrible, horrible, no good, very bad from your point of view and move on.
If we want stuff, somebody has to pay for it. We apparently want stuff, even the libertarians among us. The way we pay for it is taxes.
what’s stupid about taxing luxuries?
the people who can afford luxuries can afford the taxes. people who can’t afford luxuries, and would suffer the most negative impact from taxes in general, wouldn’t be taxed. luxury goods are by definition optional in the first place, if you really really really don’t want to pay the tax, you can choose to not buy the luxury good.
I’m missing the stupid part.
Is there any tax whatsoever that would be acceptable to libertarians? if not then maybe we can all just stipulate that any tax is going to be terrible, horrible, no good, very bad from your point of view and move on.
If we want stuff, somebody has to pay for it. We apparently want stuff, even the libertarians among us. The way we pay for it is taxes.
“I rather the rich spent their money on them rather than that other luxury good, politicians.”
I would rather the rich spent their money on shopping carts full of GOP politician steaks, but that’s just me.
Well marbled, mostly.
“I rather the rich spent their money on them rather than that other luxury good, politicians.”
I would rather the rich spent their money on shopping carts full of GOP politician steaks, but that’s just me.
Well marbled, mostly.
Taxes which cause people to do daft things – have fewer windows in their houses (yes, that was in England), or fewer wheels on their carriages – are a bad idea.
Taxes which cause people to do daft things – have fewer windows in their houses (yes, that was in England), or fewer wheels on their carriages – are a bad idea.
There’s a very long list of luxuries that are now necessities that almost everyone has. Including the poor. Heavy taxes would have slowed widespread adoption.
There’s a very long list of luxuries that are now necessities that almost everyone has. Including the poor. Heavy taxes would have slowed widespread adoption.
Re. the Towner article. I read a couple of the attacks on the doxing, and their accusations of sexism were based on the suggestion by the doxer, having identified the real person behind EF, that her husband may have written some or all of her stuff. Which does look sexist to me.
Re. the Towner article. I read a couple of the attacks on the doxing, and their accusations of sexism were based on the suggestion by the doxer, having identified the real person behind EF, that her husband may have written some or all of her stuff. Which does look sexist to me.
yes, that was in England
The US has had its share of such taxes.
A tax on interior staircases. So houses were built with exterior staircases. So, regardless of the weather, if you wanted to get to the second floor of your house, you had to go outside.
A tax on closets. So houses were built without closets and people put their clothes in freestanding armoires & wardrobes.
A higher tax on houses with kitchens. So people built houses with detached kitchens.
yes, that was in England
The US has had its share of such taxes.
A tax on interior staircases. So houses were built with exterior staircases. So, regardless of the weather, if you wanted to get to the second floor of your house, you had to go outside.
A tax on closets. So houses were built without closets and people put their clothes in freestanding armoires & wardrobes.
A higher tax on houses with kitchens. So people built houses with detached kitchens.
Different times .. Different taxes.
Nobody needs a 120’ yacht.
Different times .. Different taxes.
Nobody needs a 120’ yacht.
Politicians are always coming up with stupid ways to tax people.
I’ll be fascinated to hear what you would consider a non-stupid way to tax people.
Politicians are always coming up with stupid ways to tax people.
I’ll be fascinated to hear what you would consider a non-stupid way to tax people.
Some taxes are more stupid than others. One thing people won’t completely forego to avoid taxes is money. And I don’t care if they forego yachts (or yacht rock).
Some taxes are more stupid than others. One thing people won’t completely forego to avoid taxes is money. And I don’t care if they forego yachts (or yacht rock).
Taxes which cause people to do daft things
None of those taxes caused people to do daft things. No one in government forced them to brick up windows or build detached kitchens. People did those daft things because they were too spiteful, or greedy, or both, to pay into the public coffers.
IOW, they’re tax assholes.
Taxes which cause people to do daft things
None of those taxes caused people to do daft things. No one in government forced them to brick up windows or build detached kitchens. People did those daft things because they were too spiteful, or greedy, or both, to pay into the public coffers.
IOW, they’re tax assholes.
Basically, you can tax luxuries, in which case some people will go thru contortions to avoid paying tax. Even if the money isn’t really an issue per se. That is, they just object to taxes in principle.
Or you can tax necessities, in which case some people will end up pushed further into poverty because they can’t afford both the necessity and the tax.
Or you can just not have taxes because you don’t have government. Which somehow never works out quite as beautifully as advertised.
Basically, you can tax luxuries, in which case some people will go thru contortions to avoid paying tax. Even if the money isn’t really an issue per se. That is, they just object to taxes in principle.
Or you can tax necessities, in which case some people will end up pushed further into poverty because they can’t afford both the necessity and the tax.
Or you can just not have taxes because you don’t have government. Which somehow never works out quite as beautifully as advertised.
@hsh (2:23): This was a recent, very interesting discussion
That sounds like a good office listen. I’ll check it out tomorrow. Thanks, Janie.
@hsh (2:23): This was a recent, very interesting discussion
That sounds like a good office listen. I’ll check it out tomorrow. Thanks, Janie.
After listing off the top of my head stairs, closets, and kitchens as having been taxed at one time or another, I can’t find any good evidence that that was ever the case in the US. But I had read claims for the taxes somewhere. The top of my head doesn’t seem to be very reliable.. 🙁
Nineteenth-century houses had few or no closets because people didn’t have much stuff to put in them.
I think most houses with exterior staircases were in the south. Could be because the houses were cheaper to build, saved space in the house, and the milder weather.
Also, in milder climates, a detached kitchen wouldn’t heat up the rest of the house.
After listing off the top of my head stairs, closets, and kitchens as having been taxed at one time or another, I can’t find any good evidence that that was ever the case in the US. But I had read claims for the taxes somewhere. The top of my head doesn’t seem to be very reliable.. 🙁
Nineteenth-century houses had few or no closets because people didn’t have much stuff to put in them.
I think most houses with exterior staircases were in the south. Could be because the houses were cheaper to build, saved space in the house, and the milder weather.
Also, in milder climates, a detached kitchen wouldn’t heat up the rest of the house.
GftNC, thanks for dropping back by, I appreciate it. I wanted to take a chunk out of your comment as it’s been on my mind a bit.
I had no idea who the writer was, or what his history was, and obvs I don’t check this with everything I link, which I am sure you all understand.
I understand this totally, but I find myself on the fence a bit. I’ve had a couple of unpleasant back and forths with people on Facebook, often friends who also live in Japan, who highlight something (often it has been by Jordan Peterson or Bari Weiss) saying ‘wow, this makes sense’. I usually offer up something like ‘I don’t care much for [name]’ and then put a link to something that tries to summarize the problems with [name]’ The most recent one linked to a colorful takedown of Peterson and the person got really upset, saying of course, they weren’t espousing everything Peterson stood for and they certainly didn’t have time to go back thru his back catalogue and they were sure that they had apologized for any rhetorical overreach. I think the person got upset in question got upset because the takedown piece called Peterson words similar to asshole, and he assumed that I was calling him an asshole thru the link. And I may have been, my frustration with Peterson’s argumentation can easily boil over. And I’m certainly not the only one guilty of that
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/07/jordan-peterson-shocked-by-captain-america-villain-espousing-10-rules-for-life
So, the question in my mind is where is the line on that? I often wonder if it is because I’m an academic and the genealogy of an idea is as important as the idea. But it seems off to me when someone quotes Bari Weiss and then says ‘well, I have no idea who she is, but she is asking the right questions’. I’d be interested in what the commentariat thinks.
GftNC, thanks for dropping back by, I appreciate it. I wanted to take a chunk out of your comment as it’s been on my mind a bit.
I had no idea who the writer was, or what his history was, and obvs I don’t check this with everything I link, which I am sure you all understand.
I understand this totally, but I find myself on the fence a bit. I’ve had a couple of unpleasant back and forths with people on Facebook, often friends who also live in Japan, who highlight something (often it has been by Jordan Peterson or Bari Weiss) saying ‘wow, this makes sense’. I usually offer up something like ‘I don’t care much for [name]’ and then put a link to something that tries to summarize the problems with [name]’ The most recent one linked to a colorful takedown of Peterson and the person got really upset, saying of course, they weren’t espousing everything Peterson stood for and they certainly didn’t have time to go back thru his back catalogue and they were sure that they had apologized for any rhetorical overreach. I think the person got upset in question got upset because the takedown piece called Peterson words similar to asshole, and he assumed that I was calling him an asshole thru the link. And I may have been, my frustration with Peterson’s argumentation can easily boil over. And I’m certainly not the only one guilty of that
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/07/jordan-peterson-shocked-by-captain-america-villain-espousing-10-rules-for-life
So, the question in my mind is where is the line on that? I often wonder if it is because I’m an academic and the genealogy of an idea is as important as the idea. But it seems off to me when someone quotes Bari Weiss and then says ‘well, I have no idea who she is, but she is asking the right questions’. I’d be interested in what the commentariat thinks.
Dammit, Charles, stop correcting yourself before I can do my thing.
“Heavy taxes would have slowed widespread adoption.”
So, politicians seem NOT to tax in stupid ways most of the time.
https://www.mountvernon.org/the-estate-gardens/the-mansion/the-chintz-room/when-is-a-closet-actually-a-closet/
That tax on closets was thought up by uptight conservative scum who wanted to remove all refuge and privacy for homosexuals and lesbians, which is why if you wanted to locate a Fallwellian Puritan Christian conservative hypocrite and a slave boy together, the armoire on wheels was the first place you’d look.
The reason there are no houses in America is because we have property taxes.
Cave living was never taxed, so whatever happened to it?
Living under bridges is tax free, and yet the rich turn their noses up at it. Maybe they require a support bridge next door under which they can store their helicopters.
The reason Milton Berle regularly appeared on stage without pants? The trouser tax. He also entered the theater through a second floor window because that’s where the ladies’ dressing rooms were and cigars that were JUST cigars were taxed if he entered on the first floor, but his other cigar that wasn’t a cigar wasn’t taxed unless he ran some beer through it.
Balconies were taxed for a time as well. That ended love as we know it, but fewer accidental suicides among your besotted Romeos and your hot-to-trot Juliets were reported in the ten-year census, as they were forced to leave the building by the outside staircase on which going down the outside staircase was untaxed … going up the down outside staircase WAS taxed, but walking UP the interior staircase was a non-taxable event, while walking down it caused massive tax liabilities, not to mention calamities like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0I7R_NCe4
Things never change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHjlIPnnY1Y
“A higher tax on houses with kitchens. So people built houses with detached kitchens.”
Fewer houses burned to the ground and immolated the kids upstairs who refused to escape via the staircases for fear of taxation.
Thus, the dumbwaiter was invented, but the inventors sorely under estimated the number of dumb waiters.
Stupidity and lying are not taxed, which is why the Trump republican Party produces a surfeit of it on account of it is speech protected by the First Amendment, except in legal proceedings where free speech and freedom go to die because you must swear to tell the truth and nothing but, unless you are 100 whackadoodle fascist murderous military conservatives who are intent on committing genocide.
If we confiscated stupidity and lying and arseholes, they’d only want more it, like their guns, not that that they have enough untaxed outbuildings on their property and/or support yachts to store all of it.
If lying was taxed out of existence think how awful life would be without billboards, pop-up ads, FOX News blondes, the internet, television, radio, fortune cookies, check engine lights, social media and Americans in general.
We’d be down to one “The biggest, world-renowned Hamburger in the world” joint for the lot of us.
Lying is the lifeblood of America.
Bullshit is the oxygen.
Kidding ourselves is the lymph.
Groucho interviews the editor of Reason Magazine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmnnLs0v9_s
Dammit, Charles, stop correcting yourself before I can do my thing.
“Heavy taxes would have slowed widespread adoption.”
So, politicians seem NOT to tax in stupid ways most of the time.
https://www.mountvernon.org/the-estate-gardens/the-mansion/the-chintz-room/when-is-a-closet-actually-a-closet/
That tax on closets was thought up by uptight conservative scum who wanted to remove all refuge and privacy for homosexuals and lesbians, which is why if you wanted to locate a Fallwellian Puritan Christian conservative hypocrite and a slave boy together, the armoire on wheels was the first place you’d look.
The reason there are no houses in America is because we have property taxes.
Cave living was never taxed, so whatever happened to it?
Living under bridges is tax free, and yet the rich turn their noses up at it. Maybe they require a support bridge next door under which they can store their helicopters.
The reason Milton Berle regularly appeared on stage without pants? The trouser tax. He also entered the theater through a second floor window because that’s where the ladies’ dressing rooms were and cigars that were JUST cigars were taxed if he entered on the first floor, but his other cigar that wasn’t a cigar wasn’t taxed unless he ran some beer through it.
Balconies were taxed for a time as well. That ended love as we know it, but fewer accidental suicides among your besotted Romeos and your hot-to-trot Juliets were reported in the ten-year census, as they were forced to leave the building by the outside staircase on which going down the outside staircase was untaxed … going up the down outside staircase WAS taxed, but walking UP the interior staircase was a non-taxable event, while walking down it caused massive tax liabilities, not to mention calamities like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0I7R_NCe4
Things never change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHjlIPnnY1Y
“A higher tax on houses with kitchens. So people built houses with detached kitchens.”
Fewer houses burned to the ground and immolated the kids upstairs who refused to escape via the staircases for fear of taxation.
Thus, the dumbwaiter was invented, but the inventors sorely under estimated the number of dumb waiters.
Stupidity and lying are not taxed, which is why the Trump republican Party produces a surfeit of it on account of it is speech protected by the First Amendment, except in legal proceedings where free speech and freedom go to die because you must swear to tell the truth and nothing but, unless you are 100 whackadoodle fascist murderous military conservatives who are intent on committing genocide.
If we confiscated stupidity and lying and arseholes, they’d only want more it, like their guns, not that that they have enough untaxed outbuildings on their property and/or support yachts to store all of it.
If lying was taxed out of existence think how awful life would be without billboards, pop-up ads, FOX News blondes, the internet, television, radio, fortune cookies, check engine lights, social media and Americans in general.
We’d be down to one “The biggest, world-renowned Hamburger in the world” joint for the lot of us.
Lying is the lifeblood of America.
Bullshit is the oxygen.
Kidding ourselves is the lymph.
Groucho interviews the editor of Reason Magazine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmnnLs0v9_s
Indoor plumbing is taxed one way or another, which is why most libertarians still use an outhouse, or they follow the Pope into the woods to to see what he’s up to.
Indoor plumbing is taxed one way or another, which is why most libertarians still use an outhouse, or they follow the Pope into the woods to to see what he’s up to.
Texas has a pole tax…
“Throughout history there have been many strange, unusual, and weird taxes (read about the history of taxes). Many of them were implemented to raise additional revenue, while the purpose of others was to promote social change. Here are some of the strangest ones:”
Strange & Unusual Taxes Throughout History
Texas has a pole tax…
“Throughout history there have been many strange, unusual, and weird taxes (read about the history of taxes). Many of them were implemented to raise additional revenue, while the purpose of others was to promote social change. Here are some of the strangest ones:”
Strange & Unusual Taxes Throughout History
The “window tax” in England prompted Isaac Newton to invent the reflector telescope, since the primary lenses of refractor telescopes were taxed as “windows”.
With the side benefits of removing chromatic aberration and making it possible to expand telescope apertures from the ~few cm size of Galileo to the tens of cm in Newton’s day to ~10 meters today.
The “window tax” in England prompted Isaac Newton to invent the reflector telescope, since the primary lenses of refractor telescopes were taxed as “windows”.
With the side benefits of removing chromatic aberration and making it possible to expand telescope apertures from the ~few cm size of Galileo to the tens of cm in Newton’s day to ~10 meters today.
Taxes which cause people to do daft things – have fewer windows in their houses (yes, that was in England), or fewer wheels on their carriages – are a bad idea.
So what kind of tax regimes are a good idea?
All of the examples of people ‘doing daft things’ given here are examples of people trying to dodge paying taxes.
It’s true, tax luxuries, and people will go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax income, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax money transfers like sales taxes and similar, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them. Except the people who can’t afford the attorneys and accountants required to go through the contortions, those folks just have to pay and pay.
Maybe people should just pay their damned taxes instead.
Taxes which cause people to do daft things – have fewer windows in their houses (yes, that was in England), or fewer wheels on their carriages – are a bad idea.
So what kind of tax regimes are a good idea?
All of the examples of people ‘doing daft things’ given here are examples of people trying to dodge paying taxes.
It’s true, tax luxuries, and people will go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax income, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax money transfers like sales taxes and similar, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them. Except the people who can’t afford the attorneys and accountants required to go through the contortions, those folks just have to pay and pay.
Maybe people should just pay their damned taxes instead.
lj: I often wonder if it is because I’m an academic and the genealogy of an idea is as important as the idea. But it seems off to me when someone quotes Bari Weiss and then says ‘well, I have no idea who she is, but she is asking the right questions’. I’d be interested in what the commentariat thinks.
I care about the genealogy of ideas too; maybe it’s because I’m an academic manqué. But it’s also personal, and you can throw in an “attention conservation” component in my evaluation of who’s worth reading online.
On the one hand, an idea isn’t responsible for the people who espouse it, so why should it matter who expresses an idea if it’s a good one?
On the other hand, people who write have a body of work — and now, with the internet, a body and history of interactions — so that we can place their expression of a certain idea into a larger context and, with enough experience, make our own judgments about their sincerity, honesty, motives, etc.
Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, the person in GftNC’s link, let’s call him Alvin – among others – seem to me to be mostly all about themselves, and not really about what they present themselves as being, which is concerned to make the world a better place. Thus – I don’t trust them, right upfront. (lj: upthread you seemed not to want to name the writer in question; I named him later but am reverting to your reticence.)
Alvin spews words like Niagara Falls spews water. He always has; he took a break (not a very long one, it would seem), and came back still spewing words, and still framing his points, such as they are, in terms of himself against the stubborn resistance of other people to take his brilliant advice about how to fix everything, which mostly involves other people changing their behavior.
This gets tiresome. There are 7.5 billion people on the planet, give or take, and most of them have opinions, and a lot of them/us spew their/our opinions online every day, so it’s not hard to find a good idea expressed by someone with a more trustworthy body of work and a more trust-inspiring history and apparent motivation than Alvin’s (IMO). (Yes, I know lots of people haven’t encountered him before. Lucky you!)
GftNC thinks Alvin is pithy; I find him unbearably turgid and self-absorbed. Tastes differ! But also, because of the manipulativeness of his writing, I think any good ideas embedded in it are more healthily sought elsewhere.
I mentioned above the rhetorical ploy of presuming a conclusion (that the concept of the “asshole” has somehow been out of favor and Alvin is just the guy to rehabilitate it). There’s another rhetorical ploy underpinning that essay, and many of Alvin’s writings, which is the use of the word “we.” Alvin bills himself as a leftist; you just have to look at the blurbs about his book on Amazon to see that. His ponderings are a sort of “more in sorrow than in anger” plea to the community he has alleged is his own, to get their act together.
From the essay GftNC linked, the more in sorrow than in anger plea: “I’m asking that we be free to utilize our judgment to decide which claims of bigotry are credible and which aren’t without being accused of being on the wrong side.”
First reaction: you might as well try to stop a hurricane as lay down the law in this manner about how people should behave. Since it’s not going to work, why write it? Self-congratulation, that’s my interpretation.
Secondly, no writer who uses “utilize” when “use” would do is pithy. 😉
lj: I often wonder if it is because I’m an academic and the genealogy of an idea is as important as the idea. But it seems off to me when someone quotes Bari Weiss and then says ‘well, I have no idea who she is, but she is asking the right questions’. I’d be interested in what the commentariat thinks.
I care about the genealogy of ideas too; maybe it’s because I’m an academic manqué. But it’s also personal, and you can throw in an “attention conservation” component in my evaluation of who’s worth reading online.
On the one hand, an idea isn’t responsible for the people who espouse it, so why should it matter who expresses an idea if it’s a good one?
On the other hand, people who write have a body of work — and now, with the internet, a body and history of interactions — so that we can place their expression of a certain idea into a larger context and, with enough experience, make our own judgments about their sincerity, honesty, motives, etc.
Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, the person in GftNC’s link, let’s call him Alvin – among others – seem to me to be mostly all about themselves, and not really about what they present themselves as being, which is concerned to make the world a better place. Thus – I don’t trust them, right upfront. (lj: upthread you seemed not to want to name the writer in question; I named him later but am reverting to your reticence.)
Alvin spews words like Niagara Falls spews water. He always has; he took a break (not a very long one, it would seem), and came back still spewing words, and still framing his points, such as they are, in terms of himself against the stubborn resistance of other people to take his brilliant advice about how to fix everything, which mostly involves other people changing their behavior.
This gets tiresome. There are 7.5 billion people on the planet, give or take, and most of them have opinions, and a lot of them/us spew their/our opinions online every day, so it’s not hard to find a good idea expressed by someone with a more trustworthy body of work and a more trust-inspiring history and apparent motivation than Alvin’s (IMO). (Yes, I know lots of people haven’t encountered him before. Lucky you!)
GftNC thinks Alvin is pithy; I find him unbearably turgid and self-absorbed. Tastes differ! But also, because of the manipulativeness of his writing, I think any good ideas embedded in it are more healthily sought elsewhere.
I mentioned above the rhetorical ploy of presuming a conclusion (that the concept of the “asshole” has somehow been out of favor and Alvin is just the guy to rehabilitate it). There’s another rhetorical ploy underpinning that essay, and many of Alvin’s writings, which is the use of the word “we.” Alvin bills himself as a leftist; you just have to look at the blurbs about his book on Amazon to see that. His ponderings are a sort of “more in sorrow than in anger” plea to the community he has alleged is his own, to get their act together.
From the essay GftNC linked, the more in sorrow than in anger plea: “I’m asking that we be free to utilize our judgment to decide which claims of bigotry are credible and which aren’t without being accused of being on the wrong side.”
First reaction: you might as well try to stop a hurricane as lay down the law in this manner about how people should behave. Since it’s not going to work, why write it? Self-congratulation, that’s my interpretation.
Secondly, no writer who uses “utilize” when “use” would do is pithy. 😉
I want to apologize for a certain amount of exaggeration in my take on Alvin’s writing. But that doesn’t change my intention not to spend any more of the precious minutes I have left on this planet paying attention to him.
Life is short, is what I’ve heard.
I want to apologize for a certain amount of exaggeration in my take on Alvin’s writing. But that doesn’t change my intention not to spend any more of the precious minutes I have left on this planet paying attention to him.
Life is short, is what I’ve heard.
On the other hand, people who write have a body of work — and now, with the internet, a body and history of interactions — so that we can place their expression of a certain idea into a larger context and, with enough experience, make our own judgments about their sincerity, honesty, motives, etc.
This. The rhetorical situation is an important consideration. So while I may agree with the sentiment of what is being expressed, I may find that this sentiment, expressed in this particular context, by this particular person, becomes something more than just an argument in isolation.
By the same token, I try not to judge the person linking to, or quoting, the sentiment by the same measure as I do the original author. Different rhetorical situation to be judged by different standards. Still, if one supports, or enthusiastically quotes, Jordan Peterson or Bill Maher enough times and people will start to suspect a deeper affinity.
On the other hand, people who write have a body of work — and now, with the internet, a body and history of interactions — so that we can place their expression of a certain idea into a larger context and, with enough experience, make our own judgments about their sincerity, honesty, motives, etc.
This. The rhetorical situation is an important consideration. So while I may agree with the sentiment of what is being expressed, I may find that this sentiment, expressed in this particular context, by this particular person, becomes something more than just an argument in isolation.
By the same token, I try not to judge the person linking to, or quoting, the sentiment by the same measure as I do the original author. Different rhetorical situation to be judged by different standards. Still, if one supports, or enthusiastically quotes, Jordan Peterson or Bill Maher enough times and people will start to suspect a deeper affinity.
By the same token, I try not to judge the person linking to, or quoting, the sentiment by the same measure as I do the original author.
Yes, that’s a good baseline.
*****
Bill Maher…the king of “Look how much cleverer I am than everyone else.” With a sneer. There are people in my life who admire him, and there’s at least one who admires Peterson. It’s a difficult dance.
By the same token, I try not to judge the person linking to, or quoting, the sentiment by the same measure as I do the original author.
Yes, that’s a good baseline.
*****
Bill Maher…the king of “Look how much cleverer I am than everyone else.” With a sneer. There are people in my life who admire him, and there’s at least one who admires Peterson. It’s a difficult dance.
That happens when you don’t allow the price of some to go up when its value goes up.
This kind of attitude is why we can’t have things.
It’s not even technically correct from a myopic libertarian econ 101 perspective. Even if raising prices is a valid (ahem, sociopathic) way to ration in a shortage, a shortage is not actually in evidence here. There were, in fact, a perfectly normal number of steaks in the meat case. Or at least there were 10 minutes before those assholes arrived…
So it’s not that the supermarket was prevented from hiking prices because of bleeding heart liberal policies. I guess they might have been, if they’d gotten the chance, but it’s moot. Practically speaking there’s nothing they could have done if they’d wanted to. One minute it’s business as usual in the meat section, the next minute, the shelves are empty, and a happy couple of sociopaths are wheeling their overloaded cart to the register, depriving everyone else of being able to buy meat at any price for a couple days.
The only even remotely practical way to somehow solve that with price signals would be to sell meat by auction or something. Have everyone crowd around while the butcher takes bids for the steaks one at a time. That just sounds like a giant PITA for everyone. It’s not how supermarkets work, and for good reason.
So maybe, just maybe, consider whether the *actual* way to solve this sort of anti-social assholery — without putting enormous non-monetary burdens on everyone — might be to apply social pressure. Call people like this out for being assholes. Don’t just shrug our shoulders and excuse it with the equivalent of, “Whelp, money. Whatcha gonna do. Transactions are more important than society.”
That happens when you don’t allow the price of some to go up when its value goes up.
This kind of attitude is why we can’t have things.
It’s not even technically correct from a myopic libertarian econ 101 perspective. Even if raising prices is a valid (ahem, sociopathic) way to ration in a shortage, a shortage is not actually in evidence here. There were, in fact, a perfectly normal number of steaks in the meat case. Or at least there were 10 minutes before those assholes arrived…
So it’s not that the supermarket was prevented from hiking prices because of bleeding heart liberal policies. I guess they might have been, if they’d gotten the chance, but it’s moot. Practically speaking there’s nothing they could have done if they’d wanted to. One minute it’s business as usual in the meat section, the next minute, the shelves are empty, and a happy couple of sociopaths are wheeling their overloaded cart to the register, depriving everyone else of being able to buy meat at any price for a couple days.
The only even remotely practical way to somehow solve that with price signals would be to sell meat by auction or something. Have everyone crowd around while the butcher takes bids for the steaks one at a time. That just sounds like a giant PITA for everyone. It’s not how supermarkets work, and for good reason.
So maybe, just maybe, consider whether the *actual* way to solve this sort of anti-social assholery — without putting enormous non-monetary burdens on everyone — might be to apply social pressure. Call people like this out for being assholes. Don’t just shrug our shoulders and excuse it with the equivalent of, “Whelp, money. Whatcha gonna do. Transactions are more important than society.”
* can’t have *nice* things.
* can’t have *nice* things.
It’s true, tax luxuries, and people will go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax income, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax money transfers like sales taxes and similar, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them.
There’s some kind of Campbell’s Law thing going on here, which is always interesting to me.
But I wonder if one way around this particular one would be to stop pussyfooting around and just elevate removing socially corrosive levels of excess wealth to be a primary goal of tax policy. As we should anyway.
Even if you could somehow manage to skirt the brightwork-on-yachts tax or the alligator-skin-shoe tax or whatever this week, you’d know the tax man would still be coming for you eventually. (And if the tax man was doing his job last year, you shouldn’t have quite so disproportionately many resources to use to avoid him anyway.)
It’s true, tax luxuries, and people will go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax income, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them. Tax money transfers like sales taxes and similar, and people go through contortions to avoid paying them.
There’s some kind of Campbell’s Law thing going on here, which is always interesting to me.
But I wonder if one way around this particular one would be to stop pussyfooting around and just elevate removing socially corrosive levels of excess wealth to be a primary goal of tax policy. As we should anyway.
Even if you could somehow manage to skirt the brightwork-on-yachts tax or the alligator-skin-shoe tax or whatever this week, you’d know the tax man would still be coming for you eventually. (And if the tax man was doing his job last year, you shouldn’t have quite so disproportionately many resources to use to avoid him anyway.)
So what kind of tax regimes are a good idea?
Income taxes are a good idea. They should be progressive (higher marginal rates for higher incomes) and should apply to all forms of income equally.
In a wealthy country, income tax should be combined with a universal income, so that the effective tax rate becomes negative for the lowest incomes.
Sales taxes (or VAT, if you think of that differently) are necessary to raise sufficient revenue. They should apply equally to all goods.
Taxes on externalities (a carbon tax, for example) can be good. The tax level should be set to price the externality fairly, not to maximise revenue.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
So what kind of tax regimes are a good idea?
Income taxes are a good idea. They should be progressive (higher marginal rates for higher incomes) and should apply to all forms of income equally.
In a wealthy country, income tax should be combined with a universal income, so that the effective tax rate becomes negative for the lowest incomes.
Sales taxes (or VAT, if you think of that differently) are necessary to raise sufficient revenue. They should apply equally to all goods.
Taxes on externalities (a carbon tax, for example) can be good. The tax level should be set to price the externality fairly, not to maximise revenue.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
If we want stuff…..
IOW, they’re tax assholes.
If we want government to buy us stuff.
If it’s cheaper to brick up a window than pay the tax then most people would have fewer windows.
I assume no one here just pays a higher rate on income than required or calls to get their property tax appraisal raised. No one added money to their IRA but decided not to claim the deduction?
If we want stuff…..
IOW, they’re tax assholes.
If we want government to buy us stuff.
If it’s cheaper to brick up a window than pay the tax then most people would have fewer windows.
I assume no one here just pays a higher rate on income than required or calls to get their property tax appraisal raised. No one added money to their IRA but decided not to claim the deduction?
I assume no one here just pays a higher rate on income than required
You assume wrong. Briefly, there are a range of deductions available to me that I just don’t take.
I’m in the fortunate position of being able to do that without it having a significant effect on my daily life. But it’s also something I do intentionally. I have enough, more than I need actually, I don’t mind paying a bit more than I’m legally obliged to.
The “if we want government….” correction is accurate. And there are a lot of things the government buys that I would prefer they didn’t. Everyone reading this has their own list, no doubt.
I accept that as the price of living in a town, state, and nation that includes people whose values and priorities differ from mine.
If bricking up your windows to avoid a tax is how folks want to go, so be it. Let them enjoy the darkness.
I assume no one here just pays a higher rate on income than required
You assume wrong. Briefly, there are a range of deductions available to me that I just don’t take.
I’m in the fortunate position of being able to do that without it having a significant effect on my daily life. But it’s also something I do intentionally. I have enough, more than I need actually, I don’t mind paying a bit more than I’m legally obliged to.
The “if we want government….” correction is accurate. And there are a lot of things the government buys that I would prefer they didn’t. Everyone reading this has their own list, no doubt.
I accept that as the price of living in a town, state, and nation that includes people whose values and priorities differ from mine.
If bricking up your windows to avoid a tax is how folks want to go, so be it. Let them enjoy the darkness.
tithe
tithe
Problems associated with taxing the rich can be effectively addressed by not having any rich people to begin with.
Problems associated with taxing the rich can be effectively addressed by not having any rich people to begin with.
I think that is admirable russell. Not because you do it, but because it is a personal action consistent with your values as expressed here.
I think that is admirable russell. Not because you do it, but because it is a personal action consistent with your values as expressed here.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
There’s an argument to be made that luxury yachts — at least the ones that require utility yachts — are themselves a kind of negative social externality.
I think it’d be probably be more straightforward to simply tax the wealth away before it gets that far, but the argument is there.
There is in general a far wider range of stuff where there’s legitimate public interest in at least discouraging or encouraging certain spending patterns.
This is actually in large part what raising the corporate tax rate is really about. Or should be. Most firms have a lot of flexibility with where their accounting profit ends up. They can easily avoid taxes on profits by increasing “expenses”, like R&D budgets or higher “efficiency” wages. And those are tax dodges we should be more or less entirely in favor of.
Problems associated with taxing the rich can be effectively addressed by not having any rich people to begin with.
This.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
There’s an argument to be made that luxury yachts — at least the ones that require utility yachts — are themselves a kind of negative social externality.
I think it’d be probably be more straightforward to simply tax the wealth away before it gets that far, but the argument is there.
There is in general a far wider range of stuff where there’s legitimate public interest in at least discouraging or encouraging certain spending patterns.
This is actually in large part what raising the corporate tax rate is really about. Or should be. Most firms have a lot of flexibility with where their accounting profit ends up. They can easily avoid taxes on profits by increasing “expenses”, like R&D budgets or higher “efficiency” wages. And those are tax dodges we should be more or less entirely in favor of.
Problems associated with taxing the rich can be effectively addressed by not having any rich people to begin with.
This.
So maybe, just maybe, consider whether the *actual* way to solve this sort of anti-social assholery…
I’d like to believe that, were I the manager of that supermarket, I’d have kicked those two out sans le bœuf. That would be my idealized conception of myself as a supermarket manager in that situation.
So maybe, just maybe, consider whether the *actual* way to solve this sort of anti-social assholery…
I’d like to believe that, were I the manager of that supermarket, I’d have kicked those two out sans le bœuf. That would be my idealized conception of myself as a supermarket manager in that situation.
limit 5 gal per person.
5 gallons will get the average person around for a few days, by which time the current problem will have sorted itself out.
instead, people are buying gas they don’t immediately need out of unfounded panic and leaving people like me and my wife literally without a car. literally – our car is 25 miles away in a gas station parking lot because my wife ran out of gas while trying to get home and couldn’t find a gas station anywhere that had gas.
it’s the same situation as the great TP shortage of 2020. there was no supply shortage. there was an unnatural demand spike by caused by people trying to get ahead of a supply shortage that didn’t exist until they caused it.
panic buying is a disgraceful tendency.
limit 5 gal per person.
5 gallons will get the average person around for a few days, by which time the current problem will have sorted itself out.
instead, people are buying gas they don’t immediately need out of unfounded panic and leaving people like me and my wife literally without a car. literally – our car is 25 miles away in a gas station parking lot because my wife ran out of gas while trying to get home and couldn’t find a gas station anywhere that had gas.
it’s the same situation as the great TP shortage of 2020. there was no supply shortage. there was an unnatural demand spike by caused by people trying to get ahead of a supply shortage that didn’t exist until they caused it.
panic buying is a disgraceful tendency.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
One of the, to my mind legitimate, uses of the tax system is to motivate desirable behavior. If you want to do something about climate change, for example, you can try to write volumes of regulations covering any and every activity that might contribute. But a carbon tax of some sort is vastly easier to administer. And, other than being a tax (if the word makes you twitch), has few negative externalities.
Now you can argue about whether that constitutes a “moral view” about what people should spend money on. But no more so than any non-tax law that might get written on the subject.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
One of the, to my mind legitimate, uses of the tax system is to motivate desirable behavior. If you want to do something about climate change, for example, you can try to write volumes of regulations covering any and every activity that might contribute. But a carbon tax of some sort is vastly easier to administer. And, other than being a tax (if the word makes you twitch), has few negative externalities.
Now you can argue about whether that constitutes a “moral view” about what people should spend money on. But no more so than any non-tax law that might get written on the subject.
Ha, just got back to this, and realise that the commentariat may well have moved on to tax and yachts, but just in case:
I don’t know why we’re calling him Alvin, but I assume it’s for a good reason so I’m sticking with it.
As I said, I knew nothing about him, but I have now had a quick scout around, and see that not only is he a lefty, he is “an avowed Marxist”. No doubt McKinney will find that of note, although I didn’t.
Interestingly, I see that he has suffered since youth with bipolar disease, and has had several episodes of unmedicated mania during which he has said and done horrible, unforgiveable things. He has posted about this, fully owns it and its heinousness, and seems properly and sincerely regretful, including now (he says) conscientiously taking the meds. I’ve had a couple of people close to me with this condition, and know how terrible it, and its ripples, can be. He doesn’t seem to use it to excuse himself, FWIW.
But anyway, this really has very little or no bearing on his opinions and output, when not manic. So I revert to my position of not being prepared (or able) to vet every writer of an interesting article I read for their previous views and output, if I think the article worthwhile, as I did here. And it will be obvious, from everything I’ve ever said here on ObWi, that I resist any concept of an “approved” roster of commentators or public intellectuals, while agreeing that it’s valuable to know about their past views. I’m always happy to be informed about people I was ignorant about, and prepared to consider whether it changes my opinion of them or the work in question.
The question of how much one should consider a “creator’”s work in the context of their past is a fascinating one, and one most of us have had to consider at least when thinking about artists’ works of genius, when what we know about their private lives inclines us to think badly of them.
The conclusion I came to, after thinking about it in that context, was that if their works survived (for me) the revelation of their behaviour (which they don’t always), I would not boycott the works nor try to stop myself from enjoying them. I suppose somewhere in this calculation was the concept that people are multifarious within themselves, and that great works are the product of their better selves (or, if that’s how you think about it, their divine self). But I know that not everyone takes this view, and that’s obviously totally their right.
But anyway, back to Alvin. Janie’s right: anybody who uses “utilize” for “use” cannot really be called pithy. I should really have said coherent, or well-expressed. We all have different buttons to be pressed; I do not myself mind it a bit when people go on about how things should be, and how people should behave. I ignore it when I disagree, note it when I think it shows more about them than the people they are criticizing, and appreciate it when it either gives me something new to think about or manages to express something well that I have been incoherently feeling and groping towards, as happened here.
(On the limited point Pro Bono made upthread about the actual outer of Elena Ferrante, and how to the extent he implied that the true author was her husband, as in the case of Colette and Willi, then that justified an accusation of sexism, I agree. I didn’t follow that saga at all closely when it happened, but it may well be that this was not a particularly good example of the phenomenon. But the actual point of what Alvin was writing about is unaffected.)
I didn’t think his point about “asshole” falling out of use was just a rhetorical ploy and not true. I actually think what he is talking about is a real phenomenon I have noticed (nothing to do with the word “asshole”, and more to do with the tendency to go to ideological Defcon1 when accusing someone disagreed with, as opposed to just thinking they’re wrong and being an asshole or epithet of choice). I do believe that this phenomenon, if it continues and gets worse will have the effect of stifling nuanced dissent, even among people of considerably similar ideological or moral opinions, who could otherwise be staunch allies. Anybody else’s MMV.
Ha, just got back to this, and realise that the commentariat may well have moved on to tax and yachts, but just in case:
I don’t know why we’re calling him Alvin, but I assume it’s for a good reason so I’m sticking with it.
As I said, I knew nothing about him, but I have now had a quick scout around, and see that not only is he a lefty, he is “an avowed Marxist”. No doubt McKinney will find that of note, although I didn’t.
Interestingly, I see that he has suffered since youth with bipolar disease, and has had several episodes of unmedicated mania during which he has said and done horrible, unforgiveable things. He has posted about this, fully owns it and its heinousness, and seems properly and sincerely regretful, including now (he says) conscientiously taking the meds. I’ve had a couple of people close to me with this condition, and know how terrible it, and its ripples, can be. He doesn’t seem to use it to excuse himself, FWIW.
But anyway, this really has very little or no bearing on his opinions and output, when not manic. So I revert to my position of not being prepared (or able) to vet every writer of an interesting article I read for their previous views and output, if I think the article worthwhile, as I did here. And it will be obvious, from everything I’ve ever said here on ObWi, that I resist any concept of an “approved” roster of commentators or public intellectuals, while agreeing that it’s valuable to know about their past views. I’m always happy to be informed about people I was ignorant about, and prepared to consider whether it changes my opinion of them or the work in question.
The question of how much one should consider a “creator’”s work in the context of their past is a fascinating one, and one most of us have had to consider at least when thinking about artists’ works of genius, when what we know about their private lives inclines us to think badly of them.
The conclusion I came to, after thinking about it in that context, was that if their works survived (for me) the revelation of their behaviour (which they don’t always), I would not boycott the works nor try to stop myself from enjoying them. I suppose somewhere in this calculation was the concept that people are multifarious within themselves, and that great works are the product of their better selves (or, if that’s how you think about it, their divine self). But I know that not everyone takes this view, and that’s obviously totally their right.
But anyway, back to Alvin. Janie’s right: anybody who uses “utilize” for “use” cannot really be called pithy. I should really have said coherent, or well-expressed. We all have different buttons to be pressed; I do not myself mind it a bit when people go on about how things should be, and how people should behave. I ignore it when I disagree, note it when I think it shows more about them than the people they are criticizing, and appreciate it when it either gives me something new to think about or manages to express something well that I have been incoherently feeling and groping towards, as happened here.
(On the limited point Pro Bono made upthread about the actual outer of Elena Ferrante, and how to the extent he implied that the true author was her husband, as in the case of Colette and Willi, then that justified an accusation of sexism, I agree. I didn’t follow that saga at all closely when it happened, but it may well be that this was not a particularly good example of the phenomenon. But the actual point of what Alvin was writing about is unaffected.)
I didn’t think his point about “asshole” falling out of use was just a rhetorical ploy and not true. I actually think what he is talking about is a real phenomenon I have noticed (nothing to do with the word “asshole”, and more to do with the tendency to go to ideological Defcon1 when accusing someone disagreed with, as opposed to just thinking they’re wrong and being an asshole or epithet of choice). I do believe that this phenomenon, if it continues and gets worse will have the effect of stifling nuanced dissent, even among people of considerably similar ideological or moral opinions, who could otherwise be staunch allies. Anybody else’s MMV.
limit 5 gal per person
We did exactly that during WW II. But it’s a big hassle to set up. And administer. Probably not worth it for something this brief.
In the 1970s, we tried only allowing purchases on alternate days, mostly to keep the lines down. It was also a hassle. But the obvious alternatives were worse.
limit 5 gal per person
We did exactly that during WW II. But it’s a big hassle to set up. And administer. Probably not worth it for something this brief.
In the 1970s, we tried only allowing purchases on alternate days, mostly to keep the lines down. It was also a hassle. But the obvious alternatives were worse.
It sounds like a setting on the pumps to me. Or at least what could fairly easily be a setting on the pumps.
It sounds like a setting on the pumps to me. Or at least what could fairly easily be a setting on the pumps.
We did exactly that during WW II. But it’s a big hassle to set up.
meh.
as Sean Hannity recently proclaimed: “God created us to provide goods and services for others”
hire a guy to stand there and watch. problem solved.
We did exactly that during WW II. But it’s a big hassle to set up.
meh.
as Sean Hannity recently proclaimed: “God created us to provide goods and services for others”
hire a guy to stand there and watch. problem solved.
hire a guy to stand there and watch. problem solved.
For a single gas station, sure. But for a consistent system across all of them? Not so much.
Not to mention that the guy would have to be armed. Heavily armed, given the “freedom = license” views of some of the gun nuts.
hire a guy to stand there and watch. problem solved.
For a single gas station, sure. But for a consistent system across all of them? Not so much.
Not to mention that the guy would have to be armed. Heavily armed, given the “freedom = license” views of some of the gun nuts.
For a single gas station, sure. But for a consistent system across all of them? Not so much.
It’s possible that even a loosely enforced “5 gal per visit” rule would help at least a little bit. It doesn’t need to be perfect. I’d add a “no containers” rule too, from what I’m hearing about my partner’s foray into VA earlier this week.
I still feel like that’s closing the barn door after the cat’s left the bag, so to speak. This is probably just my “old man yells at clouds” moment, but I think a system where we just get in the habit of recognizing the existence of other people and their needs would be way more resilient in situations like this.
Social trust is a huge — and hugely undervalued — public amenity, and we don’t pay nearly enough attention to the social externalities that are eroding what’s left of it.
For a single gas station, sure. But for a consistent system across all of them? Not so much.
It’s possible that even a loosely enforced “5 gal per visit” rule would help at least a little bit. It doesn’t need to be perfect. I’d add a “no containers” rule too, from what I’m hearing about my partner’s foray into VA earlier this week.
I still feel like that’s closing the barn door after the cat’s left the bag, so to speak. This is probably just my “old man yells at clouds” moment, but I think a system where we just get in the habit of recognizing the existence of other people and their needs would be way more resilient in situations like this.
Social trust is a huge — and hugely undervalued — public amenity, and we don’t pay nearly enough attention to the social externalities that are eroding what’s left of it.
I think that is admirable russell.
much appreciated, in particular for the reason you cite.
it’s not something I expect anyone else to do. just calling out that not everybody would react to window taxes by bricking up their windows.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
I don’t see luxury taxes as any expression of moral views. They seem, to me, to be a least-harm way to raise revenue.
Not a moral argument, but a pragmatic one.
If you can afford half a billion dollars for a boat, you can afford an excise tax on that purchase. Maybe that would translate into someone like Bezos buying a smaller boat, or maybe not buying a boat at all. The net impact of that on the overall health of the economy would be noise.
It’s not about hating on rich people. It’s about raising necessary revenue in ways that present the lowest overall burden on everybody.
If wealthy people feel picked on by stuff like this, I’d gladly trade luxury taxes for a re-balance of the relative tax rates on earned and unearned income.
limit 5 gal per person
We did exactly that during WW II.
I worked pumping gas during the 70’s gas shortages. It wasn’t just a hassle, there were fist fights and an occasional drawn gun.
It would be really helpful if people didn’t freak out and hoard things when they are in short supply. I’m not sure what it takes to get people to behave in really helpful ways.
I think that is admirable russell.
much appreciated, in particular for the reason you cite.
it’s not something I expect anyone else to do. just calling out that not everybody would react to window taxes by bricking up their windows.
I can see the temptation to impose an additional tax on luxury yachts. But the government should not be using the tax system to express moral views on what people choose to spend their money on.
I don’t see luxury taxes as any expression of moral views. They seem, to me, to be a least-harm way to raise revenue.
Not a moral argument, but a pragmatic one.
If you can afford half a billion dollars for a boat, you can afford an excise tax on that purchase. Maybe that would translate into someone like Bezos buying a smaller boat, or maybe not buying a boat at all. The net impact of that on the overall health of the economy would be noise.
It’s not about hating on rich people. It’s about raising necessary revenue in ways that present the lowest overall burden on everybody.
If wealthy people feel picked on by stuff like this, I’d gladly trade luxury taxes for a re-balance of the relative tax rates on earned and unearned income.
limit 5 gal per person
We did exactly that during WW II.
I worked pumping gas during the 70’s gas shortages. It wasn’t just a hassle, there were fist fights and an occasional drawn gun.
It would be really helpful if people didn’t freak out and hoard things when they are in short supply. I’m not sure what it takes to get people to behave in really helpful ways.
alas, the GOP is firmly against social trust and the idea of externalities and the existence of other people.
alas, the GOP is firmly against social trust and the idea of externalities and the existence of other people.
Hannity provides nothing but the thin noxious atmospheric gases of racism, hate, and malignant misbegotten privilege to the general weal, but he does suffer the little children to service unto him.
“But for a consistent system across all of them? Not so much.”
Limitations on gasoline, steaks, and toilet paper would apply same-same across the board for everyone, like limitations on the voting franchise, as we have been instructed, so what’s the problem?
Just change the rules and shrug with an innocent face as we claim nothing to see here while keeping the safeties off.
I’ll know voting limitations are sufficient for my taste when conservatives/republicans/trumpers are turned away from both polling places and gun registration …. Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Matt Gaetz and the lot of them equally screwed under the law.
We can either have America, OR we can have the Republican Party.
Choose one.
I will say federal regulators should stop warning gas hoarders that plastic fuel containers are inadvisable, on account of the freedom to self-immolate expressly stated in the Bill of Rights.
Let em load up and offer a lit match.
Hannity provides nothing but the thin noxious atmospheric gases of racism, hate, and malignant misbegotten privilege to the general weal, but he does suffer the little children to service unto him.
“But for a consistent system across all of them? Not so much.”
Limitations on gasoline, steaks, and toilet paper would apply same-same across the board for everyone, like limitations on the voting franchise, as we have been instructed, so what’s the problem?
Just change the rules and shrug with an innocent face as we claim nothing to see here while keeping the safeties off.
I’ll know voting limitations are sufficient for my taste when conservatives/republicans/trumpers are turned away from both polling places and gun registration …. Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Matt Gaetz and the lot of them equally screwed under the law.
We can either have America, OR we can have the Republican Party.
Choose one.
I will say federal regulators should stop warning gas hoarders that plastic fuel containers are inadvisable, on account of the freedom to self-immolate expressly stated in the Bill of Rights.
Let em load up and offer a lit match.
The question of how much one should consider a “creator’s work in the context of their past is a fascinating one, and one most of us have had to consider at least when thinking about artists’ works of genius, when what we know about their private lives inclines us to think badly of them.
A grab bag for this
Picasso (I think the case was first put forth that I saw by a youtube video of a female art critic, but the name escapes me)
https://kamnakabir.medium.com/picasso-an-artistic-genius-or-a-bullying-misogynistic-womaniser-4752a94a6553
Eric Gill
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchling-exhibition-rachel-cooke
Margaret Sanger
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-eugenics-and-birth-control/
The beat goes on…
The question of how much one should consider a “creator’s work in the context of their past is a fascinating one, and one most of us have had to consider at least when thinking about artists’ works of genius, when what we know about their private lives inclines us to think badly of them.
A grab bag for this
Picasso (I think the case was first put forth that I saw by a youtube video of a female art critic, but the name escapes me)
https://kamnakabir.medium.com/picasso-an-artistic-genius-or-a-bullying-misogynistic-womaniser-4752a94a6553
Eric Gill
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchling-exhibition-rachel-cooke
Margaret Sanger
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-eugenics-and-birth-control/
The beat goes on…
it’s the same situation as the great TP shortage of 2020. there was no supply shortage. there was an unnatural demand spike by caused by people trying to get ahead of a supply shortage that didn’t exist until they caused it.
I do think that’s about 90% of it — and the hoarding was deplorable — but there probably was also some contribution from the “people stopped pooping at work” factor.
I think it legitimately took the supply chain a little while to adjust to the almost overnight shift in demand from commercial rolls to residential ones.
it’s the same situation as the great TP shortage of 2020. there was no supply shortage. there was an unnatural demand spike by caused by people trying to get ahead of a supply shortage that didn’t exist until they caused it.
I do think that’s about 90% of it — and the hoarding was deplorable — but there probably was also some contribution from the “people stopped pooping at work” factor.
I think it legitimately took the supply chain a little while to adjust to the almost overnight shift in demand from commercial rolls to residential ones.
jack lecou: I think a system where we just get in the habit of recognizing the existence of other people and their needs would be way more resilient in situations like this.
Might come in handy if we’re ever faced with an epidemiological disaster of global proportions.
Oh, wait………
jack lecou: I think a system where we just get in the habit of recognizing the existence of other people and their needs would be way more resilient in situations like this.
Might come in handy if we’re ever faced with an epidemiological disaster of global proportions.
Oh, wait………
lj: exactly. And Picasso and Eric Gill were actually on my mind, along with many others. Not to mention, slightly tangentially, the ban on Wagner broadcasts on Israeli media (I don’t know if that is still in force). And more and more frequently now, things come out about artists one admires, so one continues to come up against this issue.
lj: exactly. And Picasso and Eric Gill were actually on my mind, along with many others. Not to mention, slightly tangentially, the ban on Wagner broadcasts on Israeli media (I don’t know if that is still in force). And more and more frequently now, things come out about artists one admires, so one continues to come up against this issue.
Limitations on gasoline, steaks, and toilet paper would apply same-same across the board for everyone, like limitations on the voting franchise, as we have been instructed, so what’s the problem?
You missed the point. It’s not about whether a given gas station applies the limits to everybody who gets gas there. It’s about whether all of the stations are applying limits. Which isn’t something that will happen with just some stations choosing to monitor purchases. It requires an external (i.e. government) mandate.
You (generic “you”, not you personally JDT) can take the libertarian position that any limits are unacceptable. But that’s a different discussion.
Limitations on gasoline, steaks, and toilet paper would apply same-same across the board for everyone, like limitations on the voting franchise, as we have been instructed, so what’s the problem?
You missed the point. It’s not about whether a given gas station applies the limits to everybody who gets gas there. It’s about whether all of the stations are applying limits. Which isn’t something that will happen with just some stations choosing to monitor purchases. It requires an external (i.e. government) mandate.
You (generic “you”, not you personally JDT) can take the libertarian position that any limits are unacceptable. But that’s a different discussion.
About gas, my FB feed is full of pictures of people filling up buckets or even plastic bags with gasoline. I read or heard someone recounting being on an Aeroflot flight with a guy who had two jerry cans of gas and was, of course, smoking a cigarette. I don’t know if it’s the same woman from multiple angles filling up the buckets with unleaded, but if it isn’t, I feel like we reached some point that we really shouldn’t have…
About gas, my FB feed is full of pictures of people filling up buckets or even plastic bags with gasoline. I read or heard someone recounting being on an Aeroflot flight with a guy who had two jerry cans of gas and was, of course, smoking a cigarette. I don’t know if it’s the same woman from multiple angles filling up the buckets with unleaded, but if it isn’t, I feel like we reached some point that we really shouldn’t have…
People filling plastic bags with gas are fools. As for those who smoke at the same time — evolution in action. Just hope they don’t take others down with them.
People filling plastic bags with gas are fools. As for those who smoke at the same time — evolution in action. Just hope they don’t take others down with them.
The question of how much one should consider a “creator’s work in the context of their past is a fascinating one, and one most of us have had to consider at least when thinking about artists’ works of genius, when what we know about their private lives inclines us to think badly of them.
This, along with lj’s mention of Picasso et al., has nothing to do with my avoidance of Alvin. It’s a different thing entirely.
I remembered last night that the first time I read a piece by Alvin, long ago, I too thought it was reasonably well-written. As time went by and I saw more of his writing, and watched how he behaved to other people online, I realized that the writing itself emanated from, and was imbued with, a certain attitude about himself, his ideas, other people, and the world at large. Those things colored the ideas he was presenting himself as expressing, and tainted his expression of them, for me.
Also, for GftNC: no one suggested that you should vet every writer whose work you run across online. You asked what the commentariat thought, you got some replies. That’s all. I was trying to describe the way I try to set my reading priorities, not making recommendations for you or anyone else.
And with that, since not for the first time lately there’s a strong ships passing in the night flavor to this discussion, I will leave it alone.
The question of how much one should consider a “creator’s work in the context of their past is a fascinating one, and one most of us have had to consider at least when thinking about artists’ works of genius, when what we know about their private lives inclines us to think badly of them.
This, along with lj’s mention of Picasso et al., has nothing to do with my avoidance of Alvin. It’s a different thing entirely.
I remembered last night that the first time I read a piece by Alvin, long ago, I too thought it was reasonably well-written. As time went by and I saw more of his writing, and watched how he behaved to other people online, I realized that the writing itself emanated from, and was imbued with, a certain attitude about himself, his ideas, other people, and the world at large. Those things colored the ideas he was presenting himself as expressing, and tainted his expression of them, for me.
Also, for GftNC: no one suggested that you should vet every writer whose work you run across online. You asked what the commentariat thought, you got some replies. That’s all. I was trying to describe the way I try to set my reading priorities, not making recommendations for you or anyone else.
And with that, since not for the first time lately there’s a strong ships passing in the night flavor to this discussion, I will leave it alone.
“It requires an external (i.e. government) mandate.”
Mandating is now irreversibly disabled as being socialist tyranny unless you are Jerry Falwell Jr’s wife with a righteous “business” jones on for the Christian poolboy and then its share and share alike.
“It requires an external (i.e. government) mandate.”
Mandating is now irreversibly disabled as being socialist tyranny unless you are Jerry Falwell Jr’s wife with a righteous “business” jones on for the Christian poolboy and then its share and share alike.
Mandating is now irreversibly disabled as being socialist tyranny unless you are Jerry Falwell Jr’s wife
On the contrary, mandating is absolutely allowed, required even. As long as you portray it as evangelical Christian. (Whether it actually has anything to do with Christian morality, or even if it is antithetical to same, is irrelevant.)
Mandating is now irreversibly disabled as being socialist tyranny unless you are Jerry Falwell Jr’s wife
On the contrary, mandating is absolutely allowed, required even. As long as you portray it as evangelical Christian. (Whether it actually has anything to do with Christian morality, or even if it is antithetical to same, is irrelevant.)
Not quite done after all.
As a matter of interest, perhaps: Obit for one of Eric Gill’s daughters.
*****
Also, I don’t really know: does anyone think that if you knew nothing about the life of Picasso or Wagner, you would eventually see evidence of the abuser or the anti-semite once you had contemplated their art and music for a long enough time?
I wouldn’t think so, but I don’t actually know what people think about this question.
With Alvin’s writing, the problems (as I see them) are embedded right there in the output, and once I had read enough of it, I started to realize that. I didn’t even know about the actively malicious things he had done and has apologized for, as GftNC mentions.
Not quite done after all.
As a matter of interest, perhaps: Obit for one of Eric Gill’s daughters.
*****
Also, I don’t really know: does anyone think that if you knew nothing about the life of Picasso or Wagner, you would eventually see evidence of the abuser or the anti-semite once you had contemplated their art and music for a long enough time?
I wouldn’t think so, but I don’t actually know what people think about this question.
With Alvin’s writing, the problems (as I see them) are embedded right there in the output, and once I had read enough of it, I started to realize that. I didn’t even know about the actively malicious things he had done and has apologized for, as GftNC mentions.
On the other hand, people who write have a body of work — and now, with the internet, a body and history of interactions — so that we can place their expression of a certain idea into a larger context and, with enough experience, make our own judgments about their sincerity, honesty, motives, etc.
Is there a reasonably well known person who is recognized by the Progressive Left as a good faith critic of Progressive Left policies, viewpoints, etc?
As far as taxes go, you can only tax a surplus. Take away the incentive to produce a surplus and you’re out of gas.
I’m generally not ok with getting pissy because someone has amassed a fortune beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams. That kind of money–assuming its not inherited–happens when something of value is created, which almost always requires human effort, i.e. jobs. Yachts are expensive as shit to build because of all of the bells and whistles that sit on top of the basic sea-going structure. All of those were made by someone who got paid for their effort. Plus, maintaining a yacht, like maintaining a plane, is f’ing outrageous and all of that money goes toward goods and services, which means people are gainfully employed and paying taxes.
Getting pissy about commercial endeavor, declaring that ‘enough is enough!’ is a sign of ” I know better than everyone AND I have the authority to decide for others.” Or, as I like to call it, Trumpism.
Back to taxes: put a luxury tax on yachts and watch yacht buyers go the the Netherlands for their next purchase while everyone employed making yachts in the US is out of work. Tax liquor and cigarettes and watch lower earning households’ disposable income erode correspondingly. You can only tax a dollar once and when you run out of dollars to tax, you get Cuba. BP, you want somewhere where there are no rich to tax, give Cuba a try.
I make a good living and have for some years. However, the reason I make a good living is, aside from being pretty good at what I do making me a good choice if you need my kind of services, I put a lot of people to work. I make more and so do they. If I could expand my practice 20X, my income would go more or less in proportion, but that would also means hundreds of well paid, with great benefits, people working.
That’s how free market commerce works–build a really big shop and you have a huge payroll but you also make a lot of money. Win-win.
On the other hand, people who write have a body of work — and now, with the internet, a body and history of interactions — so that we can place their expression of a certain idea into a larger context and, with enough experience, make our own judgments about their sincerity, honesty, motives, etc.
Is there a reasonably well known person who is recognized by the Progressive Left as a good faith critic of Progressive Left policies, viewpoints, etc?
As far as taxes go, you can only tax a surplus. Take away the incentive to produce a surplus and you’re out of gas.
I’m generally not ok with getting pissy because someone has amassed a fortune beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams. That kind of money–assuming its not inherited–happens when something of value is created, which almost always requires human effort, i.e. jobs. Yachts are expensive as shit to build because of all of the bells and whistles that sit on top of the basic sea-going structure. All of those were made by someone who got paid for their effort. Plus, maintaining a yacht, like maintaining a plane, is f’ing outrageous and all of that money goes toward goods and services, which means people are gainfully employed and paying taxes.
Getting pissy about commercial endeavor, declaring that ‘enough is enough!’ is a sign of ” I know better than everyone AND I have the authority to decide for others.” Or, as I like to call it, Trumpism.
Back to taxes: put a luxury tax on yachts and watch yacht buyers go the the Netherlands for their next purchase while everyone employed making yachts in the US is out of work. Tax liquor and cigarettes and watch lower earning households’ disposable income erode correspondingly. You can only tax a dollar once and when you run out of dollars to tax, you get Cuba. BP, you want somewhere where there are no rich to tax, give Cuba a try.
I make a good living and have for some years. However, the reason I make a good living is, aside from being pretty good at what I do making me a good choice if you need my kind of services, I put a lot of people to work. I make more and so do they. If I could expand my practice 20X, my income would go more or less in proportion, but that would also means hundreds of well paid, with great benefits, people working.
That’s how free market commerce works–build a really big shop and you have a huge payroll but you also make a lot of money. Win-win.
t’s about whether all of the stations are applying limits. Which isn’t something that will happen with just some stations choosing to monitor purchases.
it’s a self-correcting system. those that don’t limit will simply run out more quickly. people looking for gas will soon have a choice of 5 gallons or none.
t’s about whether all of the stations are applying limits. Which isn’t something that will happen with just some stations choosing to monitor purchases.
it’s a self-correcting system. those that don’t limit will simply run out more quickly. people looking for gas will soon have a choice of 5 gallons or none.
it’s a self-correcting system. those that don’t limit will simply run out more quickly. people looking for gas will soon have a choice of 5 gallons or none.
It’s a self-correcting system, IF the situation continues for long enough. Which, as in this case, it may not.
it’s a self-correcting system. those that don’t limit will simply run out more quickly. people looking for gas will soon have a choice of 5 gallons or none.
It’s a self-correcting system, IF the situation continues for long enough. Which, as in this case, it may not.
I’m generally not ok with getting pissy because someone has amassed a fortune beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams.
But what do you think about getting a little worried about amassing concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams?
Because that’s what these kind of “fortunes” are. That kind of wealth is absolutely anathema to the concept of democracy. (Especially in the absence of anything even pretending to be an effective check on the deployment of that wealth to influence politics directly — though given sufficient wealth, it’s questionable whether any such thing is possible in any case.)
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
I’m generally not ok with getting pissy because someone has amassed a fortune beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams.
But what do you think about getting a little worried about amassing concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams?
Because that’s what these kind of “fortunes” are. That kind of wealth is absolutely anathema to the concept of democracy. (Especially in the absence of anything even pretending to be an effective check on the deployment of that wealth to influence politics directly — though given sufficient wealth, it’s questionable whether any such thing is possible in any case.)
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
a truck holds ~12K gallons, but a big gas station can have 20K of storage per grade. and they’ll refill every day, if they can get it.
a truck holds ~12K gallons, but a big gas station can have 20K of storage per grade. and they’ll refill every day, if they can get it.
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
But but but but but but no, surely it’s not true that when it comes to ad hominems, both sides do it. Surely characterizing comments like russell’s 11:09 as “pissy” or “jealous” is done with all the integrity of bloodless argumentation.
Anyhow, if McK is “not ok” with russell (who speaks for me on this), that’s a pretty sure sign we’re on the right track.
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
But but but but but but no, surely it’s not true that when it comes to ad hominems, both sides do it. Surely characterizing comments like russell’s 11:09 as “pissy” or “jealous” is done with all the integrity of bloodless argumentation.
Anyhow, if McK is “not ok” with russell (who speaks for me on this), that’s a pretty sure sign we’re on the right track.
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
1Mx this
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
1Mx this
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
I will engage, gladly, but I need something other than a broad assertion in order to respond: pls provide three examples of a uber rich person having “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams” in the US.
Alternatively, pls be more specific about what you mean by “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams”.
In exchange, would you mind answering my first question? Thanks.
It’s just super lazy to characterize advocates of taxing away wealth as being “pissy” or “jealous” about other people having money. It completely fails to engage with the arguments. Any of them.
I will engage, gladly, but I need something other than a broad assertion in order to respond: pls provide three examples of a uber rich person having “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams” in the US.
Alternatively, pls be more specific about what you mean by “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams”.
In exchange, would you mind answering my first question? Thanks.
The question of whether we should consider the artist’s character when judging the art is a tough one for me for a few reasons, especially as an extreme metal fan. I listen to, and love, a lot of dark, aggressively misanthropic music. I also listen to a lot of nordic metal that expounds on mythological themes. I have a tattoo of an ukonvasara (Finnish Thor’s Hammer) on my forearm and two spiral circles that are highly stylized sunwheels that fortunately look little enough like swastikas to offend. These are publicly visible tattoos, so I do feel they open me up to public scrutiny when we have people like QAnon Shaman running around being folkist assholes with their symbology. I’m also a public employee.
All this to explain the context in which the deeper questions about art and artist get played out.
I own, listen to, and love a few albums by Agalloch. They are an atmospheric black metal band from the US. They get associated with Burzum sometimes – that’s the guy who burned down the stave churches in Norway and murdered the guitarist from Mayhem – partially because their music sounds similar, but also because their lyrics also traffic in dark and mysterious norse esoterica and pagan themes (with a bit of an detour into left hand path occultism). The music is beautiful and the thoughts and imagery are often profound.
Then a couple of years ago after the band had broken up, the main songwriter made an antisemitic remark on social media that got the other band members to publicly disavow his comments.
I firmly believe that it is permissible to like problematic things, so long as one does not attempt to minimize or whitewash the things that are problematic about the object of one’s love, so I feel no need to purge my music collection.
But I also have to consider what others will conclude about me from my love of the band’s music combined with my tattoos and my deep interest in pre-christian Scandinavia. Those things are part of my public persona.
So I can listen without guilt, but should I share their songs on my social media? Should I wear the band’s shirt or keep their patch on my jacket? If I go to a concert and run into a group of white power assholes there, do my tattoos and patches give them a greater sense of support and embolden them?
The first order questions about art are not too difficult, it’s the second order questions about the public role of liking and advocating for the art that gets so messy.
The question of whether we should consider the artist’s character when judging the art is a tough one for me for a few reasons, especially as an extreme metal fan. I listen to, and love, a lot of dark, aggressively misanthropic music. I also listen to a lot of nordic metal that expounds on mythological themes. I have a tattoo of an ukonvasara (Finnish Thor’s Hammer) on my forearm and two spiral circles that are highly stylized sunwheels that fortunately look little enough like swastikas to offend. These are publicly visible tattoos, so I do feel they open me up to public scrutiny when we have people like QAnon Shaman running around being folkist assholes with their symbology. I’m also a public employee.
All this to explain the context in which the deeper questions about art and artist get played out.
I own, listen to, and love a few albums by Agalloch. They are an atmospheric black metal band from the US. They get associated with Burzum sometimes – that’s the guy who burned down the stave churches in Norway and murdered the guitarist from Mayhem – partially because their music sounds similar, but also because their lyrics also traffic in dark and mysterious norse esoterica and pagan themes (with a bit of an detour into left hand path occultism). The music is beautiful and the thoughts and imagery are often profound.
Then a couple of years ago after the band had broken up, the main songwriter made an antisemitic remark on social media that got the other band members to publicly disavow his comments.
I firmly believe that it is permissible to like problematic things, so long as one does not attempt to minimize or whitewash the things that are problematic about the object of one’s love, so I feel no need to purge my music collection.
But I also have to consider what others will conclude about me from my love of the band’s music combined with my tattoos and my deep interest in pre-christian Scandinavia. Those things are part of my public persona.
So I can listen without guilt, but should I share their songs on my social media? Should I wear the band’s shirt or keep their patch on my jacket? If I go to a concert and run into a group of white power assholes there, do my tattoos and patches give them a greater sense of support and embolden them?
The first order questions about art are not too difficult, it’s the second order questions about the public role of liking and advocating for the art that gets so messy.
Cleek and JanieM, a request: give me a chance to respond to a challenge before taking your shots. Thanks and have a nice day.
PS, I’m headed out for lunch and a meeting, so my next response will be delayed. Anyone care to answer my first question?
Cleek and JanieM, a request: give me a chance to respond to a challenge before taking your shots. Thanks and have a nice day.
PS, I’m headed out for lunch and a meeting, so my next response will be delayed. Anyone care to answer my first question?
pls provide three examples of a uber rich person having “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams” in the US.
In no particular order, a few off the top of my head:
– Charles Koch
– Bill Gates
– J.B. Pritzker
– Jeff Bezos
– Meg Whitman
– Michael Bloomberg
– Paul Singer
– Sheldon Adelson
And that’s just the ones with higher profiles, lots of direct political donations, or trying on political careers themselves. There’s a lot more billionaire money operating behind the scenes, funding think tanks, etc.
pls provide three examples of a uber rich person having “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams” in the US.
In no particular order, a few off the top of my head:
– Charles Koch
– Bill Gates
– J.B. Pritzker
– Jeff Bezos
– Meg Whitman
– Michael Bloomberg
– Paul Singer
– Sheldon Adelson
And that’s just the ones with higher profiles, lots of direct political donations, or trying on political careers themselves. There’s a lot more billionaire money operating behind the scenes, funding think tanks, etc.
Anyone care to answer my first question?
Your first question is ridiculous, especially given the capitalization of “Progressive Left,” as if it’s the name of a rock band. But also because I, at least, do not speak for the “Progressive Left” (much less the fantasy of it that you’re carrying around in your head) or, for that matter, anyone but myself, and give no consent for anyone to speak for me under that label or any other.
Anyone care to answer my first question?
Your first question is ridiculous, especially given the capitalization of “Progressive Left,” as if it’s the name of a rock band. But also because I, at least, do not speak for the “Progressive Left” (much less the fantasy of it that you’re carrying around in your head) or, for that matter, anyone but myself, and give no consent for anyone to speak for me under that label or any other.
Also:
That list is mainly about how economic power can be translated to political power, but that’s only part of the story.
There’s also the problem of concentrated economic power distorting markets in and of itself. One person’s or small group’s preference literally get far more economic “votes” than everyone else’s.
And then there’s other kinds of soft power. Cultural influence, etc.
Also:
That list is mainly about how economic power can be translated to political power, but that’s only part of the story.
There’s also the problem of concentrated economic power distorting markets in and of itself. One person’s or small group’s preference literally get far more economic “votes” than everyone else’s.
And then there’s other kinds of soft power. Cultural influence, etc.
Cleek and JanieM, a request: give me a chance to respond to a challenge before taking your shots.
McKinney’s rules. Not sorry, not playing.
Cleek and JanieM, a request: give me a chance to respond to a challenge before taking your shots.
McKinney’s rules. Not sorry, not playing.
@jack lecou: Add Robert Mercer (from wikipedia):
@jack lecou: Add Robert Mercer (from wikipedia):
Is there a reasonably well known person who is recognized by the Progressive Left as a good faith critic of Progressive Left policies, viewpoints, etc?
That’s a nonsense question, since neither of those things are monolithic.
If you want a stupid answer to a stupid question though, the “Progressive Left” itself is by far the harshest critic of the “Progressive Left”.
It’s famously kind of a problem, in fact.
Is there a reasonably well known person who is recognized by the Progressive Left as a good faith critic of Progressive Left policies, viewpoints, etc?
That’s a nonsense question, since neither of those things are monolithic.
If you want a stupid answer to a stupid question though, the “Progressive Left” itself is by far the harshest critic of the “Progressive Left”.
It’s famously kind of a problem, in fact.
me: McKinney’s rules. Not sorry, not playing.
Especially when the rule would muzzle me from reacting to russell (in effect) being called “pissy” and “jealous.”
JFC.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t call people names and then expect everyone else to shut up and be polite until you can get your revised story together.
me: McKinney’s rules. Not sorry, not playing.
Especially when the rule would muzzle me from reacting to russell (in effect) being called “pissy” and “jealous.”
JFC.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t call people names and then expect everyone else to shut up and be polite until you can get your revised story together.
Also also:
There’s the power people like Jeff Bezos have over the people who work for them. Places like Amazon and Facebook (and almost every other non-unionized, non-collectivized workplace in this country, for that matter) are literally a type of authoritarian regime.
(It’s amazing how the cultural blinders work on workplace power dynamics. I *know* this is a potent kind of power, and yet it’s still an afterthought if I’m asked about it…)
Also also:
There’s the power people like Jeff Bezos have over the people who work for them. Places like Amazon and Facebook (and almost every other non-unionized, non-collectivized workplace in this country, for that matter) are literally a type of authoritarian regime.
(It’s amazing how the cultural blinders work on workplace power dynamics. I *know* this is a potent kind of power, and yet it’s still an afterthought if I’m asked about it…)
i really don’t need a response.
the characterization of people who think taxes are just a way for lazy liberal losers to spitefully punish the titans of capitalism (whom they should rightfully be admiring!) is a classic. hear it all the time.
i thought jack’s response was a good response in general to that characterization.
i really don’t need a response.
the characterization of people who think taxes are just a way for lazy liberal losers to spitefully punish the titans of capitalism (whom they should rightfully be admiring!) is a classic. hear it all the time.
i thought jack’s response was a good response in general to that characterization.
Also also also:
It’s weird that the idea that “money is power” should require concrete examples. This is the year 2021. It’s hardly a new or, AFAIK, controversial idea. Money is literally the power to buy a quart of milk. Or an election.
There is, after all, not really any point in having money otherwise. Certainly not billions of dollars of it.
We’ve put some limits on that power over the centuries, like removing the power to buy people, or buy your way out of a criminal conviction (at least outright). Those restrictions are widely (though not universally [shudder]) regarded as good things.
What I’m saying here is that there’s still a lot more to do. I suspect the more we can make money a thing that’s only good for buying milk — a quart at a time, not the whole dairy case — and the less useful it is for buying people or elections, the better off we’ll all be.
Also also also:
It’s weird that the idea that “money is power” should require concrete examples. This is the year 2021. It’s hardly a new or, AFAIK, controversial idea. Money is literally the power to buy a quart of milk. Or an election.
There is, after all, not really any point in having money otherwise. Certainly not billions of dollars of it.
We’ve put some limits on that power over the centuries, like removing the power to buy people, or buy your way out of a criminal conviction (at least outright). Those restrictions are widely (though not universally [shudder]) regarded as good things.
What I’m saying here is that there’s still a lot more to do. I suspect the more we can make money a thing that’s only good for buying milk — a quart at a time, not the whole dairy case — and the less useful it is for buying people or elections, the better off we’ll all be.
the Inca civilization, at its peak bigger than Genghis Khan’s or Alexander’s, didn’t use money. power was power.
somehow it survived.
the Inca civilization, at its peak bigger than Genghis Khan’s or Alexander’s, didn’t use money. power was power.
somehow it survived.
well, it survived until it met smallpox.
well, it survived until it met smallpox.
well, it survived until it met smallpox.
If they’d had money, maybe they could have offered it a bribe.
well, it survived until it met smallpox.
If they’d had money, maybe they could have offered it a bribe.
The jobs thing gets me. It’s as though you start with a fixed number of jobs in a given category or industry. If those particular jobs go away, that’s that. The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
There are so many unmet needs in the world and in this country, but people need to build yachts (or whatever, let’s not get fixated!) for us to have a healthy economy. We probably shouldn’t fill in potholes so people can work making tires and doing front-end alignments, I guess. Let’s promote smoking so people can work making cigarettes … and as oncologists!
Of course, only the “free market” can sort this all out properly, so don’t intervene or, god forbid, distort.
The jobs thing gets me. It’s as though you start with a fixed number of jobs in a given category or industry. If those particular jobs go away, that’s that. The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
There are so many unmet needs in the world and in this country, but people need to build yachts (or whatever, let’s not get fixated!) for us to have a healthy economy. We probably shouldn’t fill in potholes so people can work making tires and doing front-end alignments, I guess. Let’s promote smoking so people can work making cigarettes … and as oncologists!
Of course, only the “free market” can sort this all out properly, so don’t intervene or, god forbid, distort.
Back to taxes: put a luxury tax on yachts and watch yacht buyers go the the Netherlands for their next purchase while everyone employed making yachts in the US is out of work.
the yacht under discussion is being built… in the Netherlands.
just saying.
due to where I live, I’m in proximity to minor-league yachting communities. those folks do spend a lot of money, it generates income. all good.
if you were to compare half a billion dollars spent on one boat, or 100 boats, or probably 1,000 boats, and included all of the ancillary follow-on spending, and compared that to similar sums spent in other, less conspicuous consumption ways, I think you’d find that the net positive impact on the economy was greater in the latter case.
half a billion is 50,000 bathroom remodels, or 20,000 new cars, or 5 million dinners for two, or 20 million haircuts. It’s a thousand or more new houses. It’s half a million round trip airfares from NYC to London.
or, one boat, with a crew when underway, and related fuel, docking and maintenance fees.
which makes a bigger impact?
in Bezos’ case, specifically, the ‘job creator’ argument is kind of sketchy, because a lot of the jobs he creates suck. he treats his employees like shit, and unless they’re on the tech R&D side they don’t get paid particularly well, either.
so screw him and his money.
I don’t really care if people are rich. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the guy that the company I work for, all billionaires. They got that way by creating value for somebody.
Bezos too, he’s rich because it’s worth somebody’s while to use the stuff his company provides.
It’s just absurd to me that people like that pay taxes at a lower effective rate than a school librarian. And it’s absurd to me that anybody feels the need to defend their right to spend half a freaking billion dollars on a boat.
First, nobody is going to stop anybody from buying a boat. Second, a yacht that comes with a second yacht is an absurd luxury. If we want to think about this stuff in terms of traditional values, it’s at least three of the seven deadly sins rolled up into one big ridiculous purchase. Anyone who (a) has those kinds of resources and (b) chooses to spend them in that way doesn’t have a lot of basis for bitching about tax rates, and really should consider paying their people better and treating them better.
pls provide three examples of a uber rich person having “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams” in the US.
Sheldon Adelson
the Koch brothers
Robert and Rebekah Mercer
Back to taxes: put a luxury tax on yachts and watch yacht buyers go the the Netherlands for their next purchase while everyone employed making yachts in the US is out of work.
the yacht under discussion is being built… in the Netherlands.
just saying.
due to where I live, I’m in proximity to minor-league yachting communities. those folks do spend a lot of money, it generates income. all good.
if you were to compare half a billion dollars spent on one boat, or 100 boats, or probably 1,000 boats, and included all of the ancillary follow-on spending, and compared that to similar sums spent in other, less conspicuous consumption ways, I think you’d find that the net positive impact on the economy was greater in the latter case.
half a billion is 50,000 bathroom remodels, or 20,000 new cars, or 5 million dinners for two, or 20 million haircuts. It’s a thousand or more new houses. It’s half a million round trip airfares from NYC to London.
or, one boat, with a crew when underway, and related fuel, docking and maintenance fees.
which makes a bigger impact?
in Bezos’ case, specifically, the ‘job creator’ argument is kind of sketchy, because a lot of the jobs he creates suck. he treats his employees like shit, and unless they’re on the tech R&D side they don’t get paid particularly well, either.
so screw him and his money.
I don’t really care if people are rich. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the guy that the company I work for, all billionaires. They got that way by creating value for somebody.
Bezos too, he’s rich because it’s worth somebody’s while to use the stuff his company provides.
It’s just absurd to me that people like that pay taxes at a lower effective rate than a school librarian. And it’s absurd to me that anybody feels the need to defend their right to spend half a freaking billion dollars on a boat.
First, nobody is going to stop anybody from buying a boat. Second, a yacht that comes with a second yacht is an absurd luxury. If we want to think about this stuff in terms of traditional values, it’s at least three of the seven deadly sins rolled up into one big ridiculous purchase. Anyone who (a) has those kinds of resources and (b) chooses to spend them in that way doesn’t have a lot of basis for bitching about tax rates, and really should consider paying their people better and treating them better.
pls provide three examples of a uber rich person having “concentrations of power beyond almost anyone’s wildest dreams” in the US.
Sheldon Adelson
the Koch brothers
Robert and Rebekah Mercer
The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
Yep. It’s not even like you’d need job retraining in most cases. Like, as many shipwrights and naval architects as it took to build Bezos’ latest monstrosity, I’m pretty sure just as many — if not more — could have been gainfully employed building a few thousand nice little cruisers or daysailers for middle class families to enjoy. If only warehouse jobs paid a little better…
The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
Yep. It’s not even like you’d need job retraining in most cases. Like, as many shipwrights and naval architects as it took to build Bezos’ latest monstrosity, I’m pretty sure just as many — if not more — could have been gainfully employed building a few thousand nice little cruisers or daysailers for middle class families to enjoy. If only warehouse jobs paid a little better…
Freddie DeBoer found a niche deconstructing liberal certainties and while that can get on my nerves, his consistent anti-war position seems genuine and is much needed in contemporary discourse.
Incidentally, I am currently reading the second volume of Elena Ferrante’s friendship tetralogy (well, actually she admitted it was split into four parts for obvious commercial reasons) and am enjoying it very much.
At first I couldn’t get into it, then I watched the SKY TV series first (it covers the first two volumes so far) and now I can concentrate on the characters rather than the plot and admire the writing.
The downside is that I have the images already in my head, but since it’s been shot very beautifully it’s not so bad.
Freddie DeBoer found a niche deconstructing liberal certainties and while that can get on my nerves, his consistent anti-war position seems genuine and is much needed in contemporary discourse.
Incidentally, I am currently reading the second volume of Elena Ferrante’s friendship tetralogy (well, actually she admitted it was split into four parts for obvious commercial reasons) and am enjoying it very much.
At first I couldn’t get into it, then I watched the SKY TV series first (it covers the first two volumes so far) and now I can concentrate on the characters rather than the plot and admire the writing.
The downside is that I have the images already in my head, but since it’s been shot very beautifully it’s not so bad.
Anyone care to answer my first question?
Noam Chomsky
Bernie Sanders
Chris Hedges
Lawrence Lessig
Pretty much everybody at LGM
Pretty much everybody at Jacobin
all for various meanings of ‘well known’ and ‘good faith’. and, with criticism flowing in both, or all, directions.
it’s kind of a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel scenario. ‘the left’ is famously fractious.
SPLITTERS!!!!
Anyone care to answer my first question?
Noam Chomsky
Bernie Sanders
Chris Hedges
Lawrence Lessig
Pretty much everybody at LGM
Pretty much everybody at Jacobin
all for various meanings of ‘well known’ and ‘good faith’. and, with criticism flowing in both, or all, directions.
it’s kind of a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel scenario. ‘the left’ is famously fractious.
SPLITTERS!!!!
Meth dealers employ people and have customers. Some of them make a lot of money at it. What’s not to like?
Meth dealers employ people and have customers. Some of them make a lot of money at it. What’s not to like?
Meth dealers employ people and have customers. Some of them make a lot of money at it.
Or Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Just job creation all the way down on that one.
Meth dealers employ people and have customers. Some of them make a lot of money at it.
Or Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Just job creation all the way down on that one.
The people who worked for the luxury yacht builder in my home town either moved to take on a similar position in a similar industry (some are now working for private jet maufacturers), or they took their skills and went into their own business (experienced finish carpentry). They’d all be better off if the overall economy of the area were stronger and the little people there could afford more. Instead they keep investing in tourism projects, trying to attract more rich people.
My home town, like much of the rural midwest, has basically turned into a cargo cult as corporations come in to hollow it out (farming, real estate, luxury brands).
To see this writ larger, I recommend Billionaire Wilderness and its discussion of the super rich and jobs and philanthropy and sustainability in Teton County, Wyoming.
The people who worked for the luxury yacht builder in my home town either moved to take on a similar position in a similar industry (some are now working for private jet maufacturers), or they took their skills and went into their own business (experienced finish carpentry). They’d all be better off if the overall economy of the area were stronger and the little people there could afford more. Instead they keep investing in tourism projects, trying to attract more rich people.
My home town, like much of the rural midwest, has basically turned into a cargo cult as corporations come in to hollow it out (farming, real estate, luxury brands).
To see this writ larger, I recommend Billionaire Wilderness and its discussion of the super rich and jobs and philanthropy and sustainability in Teton County, Wyoming.
nous — just for the record, your 12:59 was useful and thought-provoking, even if that strand of conversation is petering out for now.
nous — just for the record, your 12:59 was useful and thought-provoking, even if that strand of conversation is petering out for now.
The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
What gets me on the argument is the implicit belief that, if their taxes went up, these folks couldn’t afford (and therefore wouldn’t buy) superyachts. Let’s get real! We could tax Bezos, for example, at 95% on his income (including capital gains) over $1 million a year from now on out, and he wouldn’t even notice the decrease. (Unless his accountant made a point of mentioning it.) It’s not like he has time to spend it.
The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
What gets me on the argument is the implicit belief that, if their taxes went up, these folks couldn’t afford (and therefore wouldn’t buy) superyachts. Let’s get real! We could tax Bezos, for example, at 95% on his income (including capital gains) over $1 million a year from now on out, and he wouldn’t even notice the decrease. (Unless his accountant made a point of mentioning it.) It’s not like he has time to spend it.
wrs @ 02.27 above. Apart from that:
Also, I don’t really know: does anyone think that if you knew nothing about the life of Picasso or Wagner, you would eventually see evidence of the abuser or the anti-semite once you had contemplated their art and music for a long enough time?
I don’t really think so, but then my receptivity to both visual art and music is markedly inferior to my receptivity to anything involving language (i.e. poetry and prose). In the case of writers, it seems a bit more likely, but frankly I’m not sure even then. However, further to the general discussion, revelations about Larkin’s opinions and private self were unedifying and gave me pause, but some of the poems were always sublime, and remain so.
I firmly believe that it is permissible to like problematic things, so long as one does not attempt to minimize or whitewash the things that are problematic about the object of one’s love, so I feel no need to purge my music collection.
I pretty much agree with this, as it relates to the makers of the problematic things. Where it gets more difficult is if the things (i.e. the works of art) contain problematic elements in themselves (as for example if the metal songs contained overtly racist or sexist lyrics obviously not deployed ironically).
If you want a stupid answer to a stupid question though, the “Progressive Left” itself is by far the harshest critic of the “Progressive Left”.
LOL. But this is very true, as well as a very funny answer.
Other than these disparate comments, the only thing left for me to add is this comment by Hume, which I read for the first time (how appropriate) today:
“Truth springs from argument amongst friends”
wrs @ 02.27 above. Apart from that:
Also, I don’t really know: does anyone think that if you knew nothing about the life of Picasso or Wagner, you would eventually see evidence of the abuser or the anti-semite once you had contemplated their art and music for a long enough time?
I don’t really think so, but then my receptivity to both visual art and music is markedly inferior to my receptivity to anything involving language (i.e. poetry and prose). In the case of writers, it seems a bit more likely, but frankly I’m not sure even then. However, further to the general discussion, revelations about Larkin’s opinions and private self were unedifying and gave me pause, but some of the poems were always sublime, and remain so.
I firmly believe that it is permissible to like problematic things, so long as one does not attempt to minimize or whitewash the things that are problematic about the object of one’s love, so I feel no need to purge my music collection.
I pretty much agree with this, as it relates to the makers of the problematic things. Where it gets more difficult is if the things (i.e. the works of art) contain problematic elements in themselves (as for example if the metal songs contained overtly racist or sexist lyrics obviously not deployed ironically).
If you want a stupid answer to a stupid question though, the “Progressive Left” itself is by far the harshest critic of the “Progressive Left”.
LOL. But this is very true, as well as a very funny answer.
Other than these disparate comments, the only thing left for me to add is this comment by Hume, which I read for the first time (how appropriate) today:
“Truth springs from argument amongst friends”
We probably shouldn’t fill in potholes so people can work making tires and doing front-end alignments, I guess. Let’s promote smoking so people can work making cigarettes … and as oncologists!
why used car prices shot up.
tl;dr:
* COVID slowed production of microchips, which has slowed new car production. understandable.
* covid interrupted the dealer -> rental car company -> used car pipeline.
rental car companies were getting fewer rentals last year, so they sold off big chunks of their fleets all at once. but now, that has created a scarcity of rental cars now that people are starting to travel again. so the rental car companies are quickly buying new cars to replace those they sold last year. which is sucking up new car inventory. and, since they have so many new cars, those rental car companies aren’t putting cars into the used car market.
* even more fun… thanks to the stimulus, people aren’t defaulting on car loans (down 50% this year!). so their cars aren’t being repossessed. and those cars aren’t going into the used car market, either.
We probably shouldn’t fill in potholes so people can work making tires and doing front-end alignments, I guess. Let’s promote smoking so people can work making cigarettes … and as oncologists!
why used car prices shot up.
tl;dr:
* COVID slowed production of microchips, which has slowed new car production. understandable.
* covid interrupted the dealer -> rental car company -> used car pipeline.
rental car companies were getting fewer rentals last year, so they sold off big chunks of their fleets all at once. but now, that has created a scarcity of rental cars now that people are starting to travel again. so the rental car companies are quickly buying new cars to replace those they sold last year. which is sucking up new car inventory. and, since they have so many new cars, those rental car companies aren’t putting cars into the used car market.
* even more fun… thanks to the stimulus, people aren’t defaulting on car loans (down 50% this year!). so their cars aren’t being repossessed. and those cars aren’t going into the used car market, either.
Glad I bought my 2017 Jetta last July!
Glad I bought my 2017 Jetta last July!
Cleek and JanieM, a request: give me a chance to respond to a challenge before taking your shots.
Also, speaking only for myself and not cleek, I quoted jack lecou, but my comment (or “shot”) was a direct response to your “pissy” and “jealous” vocabulary, and did not depend on jack lecou’s “challenge” or your potential response to it.
What, only one of us is allowed to respond to you at a time? What rock have you been living under?
Cleek and JanieM, a request: give me a chance to respond to a challenge before taking your shots.
Also, speaking only for myself and not cleek, I quoted jack lecou, but my comment (or “shot”) was a direct response to your “pissy” and “jealous” vocabulary, and did not depend on jack lecou’s “challenge” or your potential response to it.
What, only one of us is allowed to respond to you at a time? What rock have you been living under?
3:40 directed at McK, not that it shouldn’t be clear enough.
3:40 directed at McK, not that it shouldn’t be clear enough.
Ok, I’m back from lunch.
Jack writes:
That list is mainly about how economic power can be translated to political power, but that’s only part of the story.
There’s also the problem of concentrated economic power distorting markets in and of itself. One person’s or small group’s preference literally get far more economic “votes” than everyone else’s.
And then there’s other kinds of soft power. Cultural influence, etc.
And then he adds:
Money is literally the power to buy a quart of milk. Or an election.
There is, after all, not really any point in having money otherwise. Certainly not billions of dollars of it.
Ok, rich people have influence that others don’t have with politicians. I think that’s largely a fair statement. Some use it, like the Koch Brothers. I’m not aware of Gates or Bezos being particularly political, but I could be missing something. No one mentioned Soros, which is kind of interesting but not surprising. I don’t begrudge him his money either. I also don’t object to rich people (or famous, or popular or good looking or influential) twisting politicians’ arms, but I do object to politicians sticking their arms out to be twisted instead of telling Koch or Soros to take a hike. I view this as a bipartisan situation.
The power, or influence, that bothers you is, to use a popular formulation around here, “baked in” to pretty much any human endeavor, particularly where large and diverse populations are concerned.
A byproduct of mass produced, affordable and desirable goods is that someone is going to sit at the top of the organization that manages to find a given product that meets with widespread consumer desire. Telling people they ought to buy green beans when they want Budweiser isn’t going to work. People want what they want and are willing to pay for it if they can.
Bigger organizations produce economies of scale that make life better for people with modest means.
Russell says:
in Bezos’ case, specifically, the ‘job creator’ argument is kind of sketchy, because a lot of the jobs he creates suck. he treats his employees like shit, and unless they’re on the tech R&D side they don’t get paid particularly well, either.
so screw him and his money.
HSH says:
The jobs thing gets me. It’s as though you start with a fixed number of jobs in a given category or industry. If those particular jobs go away, that’s that. The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
One of these statements is wrong. Either Amazon is able to hire 798,000 (per Google) people for shit jobs because the job market is super shitty and they don’t have any other, better opportunities OR it’s not a big deal for the grunts in the yacht building business (and the hundreds of sub-contractors and sub-suppliers) when the indignant decide super yachts consumers are grotesque and should be denied the object of their desire because they can just go do something else awesome and there are so many awesome things that can be done.
I think both are wrong. If it sucks that bad to be at Amazon, why didn’t it go union? Why do people still try to get on there?
If there are so many other great opportunities for great employment, where are they specifically?
The fact is, there is plenty of money around looking for a good investment. The jobs you think are there for the picking come into existence when someone spots a potential market, is able to raise the capital, provides the good or service and either it sells or it doesn’t. But, unless there is a going concern with openings of similar kind and quality, the idea that you can shut down a morally undesirable business like super yachts and not get economic blow back that hurts a lot of the very people you think you are helping by keeping those uber wealthy peeps from living their gauche, grossly overdone lifestyles.
There is nothing attractive about conspicuous consumption. However, it has an upside: instead of sitting on their money, the uber rich are spending it. Good. Keep doing that.
Despite the antipathy here for the free market (unfree markets are the best!–really?), it is more efficient and does more for more people than any other economic system (except possibly the system the Frankfurt School would impose if it could just find a place that would turn itself over to them).
I sometimes feel that much of the commentariat here read Babbit in the 9th grade and never got over it.
It’s just absurd to me that people like that pay taxes at a lower effective rate than a school librarian. And it’s absurd to me that anybody feels the need to defend their right to spend half a freaking billion dollars on a boat.
Ok, I think the first sentence is probably overblown. There is no way to not pay taxes on *earned* income. There is no way to not pay taxes on *realized, net capital gains*.
Unrealized capital gains–which is most of the non-real estate assets held by investors, whether uber rich or not–is simply the value of a security at a given point in time. You can’t spend it, but you can borrow against it. The loan has to be paid back or the security is sold and tax is paid at that time.
I am sympathetic to the idea that a one year holding period to qualify for cap gains income tax treatment either needs to be extended or that there should be different rates applied to capital assets held 1, 3, 5+ years to encourage long term investment, not day trading. Gains on stock held less than a year are taxed as earned income. Stock losses can only be offset against stock gains, not earned income (actually, you can deduct 3K a year against earned income).
As for defending the douche with the big yacht, no, I’m not defending him/her so much as I am defending against those people who think they know and have the right to tell others how much they should be allowed to have and that they have the right to tell people how to spend their money.
Noam Chomsky
Bernie Sanders
Chris Hedges
Lawrence Lessig
Pretty much everybody at LGM
Pretty much everybody at Jacobin
Ok, let me narrow the question: is there anyone to the right of center who the headliners or commentariat here believe make good faith arguments in favor of his/her positions and/or opposed to lefty policies/viewpoints etc?
Or Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Just job creation all the way down on that one.
Of Pfizer. Or Johnson and Johnson. Let me note that it was the private sector that came up with vaccines, not Cuba or any of the social democracies in Europe.
Ok, I’m back from lunch.
Jack writes:
That list is mainly about how economic power can be translated to political power, but that’s only part of the story.
There’s also the problem of concentrated economic power distorting markets in and of itself. One person’s or small group’s preference literally get far more economic “votes” than everyone else’s.
And then there’s other kinds of soft power. Cultural influence, etc.
And then he adds:
Money is literally the power to buy a quart of milk. Or an election.
There is, after all, not really any point in having money otherwise. Certainly not billions of dollars of it.
Ok, rich people have influence that others don’t have with politicians. I think that’s largely a fair statement. Some use it, like the Koch Brothers. I’m not aware of Gates or Bezos being particularly political, but I could be missing something. No one mentioned Soros, which is kind of interesting but not surprising. I don’t begrudge him his money either. I also don’t object to rich people (or famous, or popular or good looking or influential) twisting politicians’ arms, but I do object to politicians sticking their arms out to be twisted instead of telling Koch or Soros to take a hike. I view this as a bipartisan situation.
The power, or influence, that bothers you is, to use a popular formulation around here, “baked in” to pretty much any human endeavor, particularly where large and diverse populations are concerned.
A byproduct of mass produced, affordable and desirable goods is that someone is going to sit at the top of the organization that manages to find a given product that meets with widespread consumer desire. Telling people they ought to buy green beans when they want Budweiser isn’t going to work. People want what they want and are willing to pay for it if they can.
Bigger organizations produce economies of scale that make life better for people with modest means.
Russell says:
in Bezos’ case, specifically, the ‘job creator’ argument is kind of sketchy, because a lot of the jobs he creates suck. he treats his employees like shit, and unless they’re on the tech R&D side they don’t get paid particularly well, either.
so screw him and his money.
HSH says:
The jobs thing gets me. It’s as though you start with a fixed number of jobs in a given category or industry. If those particular jobs go away, that’s that. The people who would otherwise have worked those jobs are now out of work … forever. Doing something else just isn’t a thing, without respect to the time frame in question.
One of these statements is wrong. Either Amazon is able to hire 798,000 (per Google) people for shit jobs because the job market is super shitty and they don’t have any other, better opportunities OR it’s not a big deal for the grunts in the yacht building business (and the hundreds of sub-contractors and sub-suppliers) when the indignant decide super yachts consumers are grotesque and should be denied the object of their desire because they can just go do something else awesome and there are so many awesome things that can be done.
I think both are wrong. If it sucks that bad to be at Amazon, why didn’t it go union? Why do people still try to get on there?
If there are so many other great opportunities for great employment, where are they specifically?
The fact is, there is plenty of money around looking for a good investment. The jobs you think are there for the picking come into existence when someone spots a potential market, is able to raise the capital, provides the good or service and either it sells or it doesn’t. But, unless there is a going concern with openings of similar kind and quality, the idea that you can shut down a morally undesirable business like super yachts and not get economic blow back that hurts a lot of the very people you think you are helping by keeping those uber wealthy peeps from living their gauche, grossly overdone lifestyles.
There is nothing attractive about conspicuous consumption. However, it has an upside: instead of sitting on their money, the uber rich are spending it. Good. Keep doing that.
Despite the antipathy here for the free market (unfree markets are the best!–really?), it is more efficient and does more for more people than any other economic system (except possibly the system the Frankfurt School would impose if it could just find a place that would turn itself over to them).
I sometimes feel that much of the commentariat here read Babbit in the 9th grade and never got over it.
It’s just absurd to me that people like that pay taxes at a lower effective rate than a school librarian. And it’s absurd to me that anybody feels the need to defend their right to spend half a freaking billion dollars on a boat.
Ok, I think the first sentence is probably overblown. There is no way to not pay taxes on *earned* income. There is no way to not pay taxes on *realized, net capital gains*.
Unrealized capital gains–which is most of the non-real estate assets held by investors, whether uber rich or not–is simply the value of a security at a given point in time. You can’t spend it, but you can borrow against it. The loan has to be paid back or the security is sold and tax is paid at that time.
I am sympathetic to the idea that a one year holding period to qualify for cap gains income tax treatment either needs to be extended or that there should be different rates applied to capital assets held 1, 3, 5+ years to encourage long term investment, not day trading. Gains on stock held less than a year are taxed as earned income. Stock losses can only be offset against stock gains, not earned income (actually, you can deduct 3K a year against earned income).
As for defending the douche with the big yacht, no, I’m not defending him/her so much as I am defending against those people who think they know and have the right to tell others how much they should be allowed to have and that they have the right to tell people how to spend their money.
Noam Chomsky
Bernie Sanders
Chris Hedges
Lawrence Lessig
Pretty much everybody at LGM
Pretty much everybody at Jacobin
Ok, let me narrow the question: is there anyone to the right of center who the headliners or commentariat here believe make good faith arguments in favor of his/her positions and/or opposed to lefty policies/viewpoints etc?
Or Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Just job creation all the way down on that one.
Of Pfizer. Or Johnson and Johnson. Let me note that it was the private sector that came up with vaccines, not Cuba or any of the social democracies in Europe.
Yes, McKinney! We all know deep down in the abject depths of our pitiful envy that rich people have no more power or influence than any randomly selected peon you would care to pull aside and interview.
I would elaborate a bit more, but neverending screeching matches with objectively awful Trotskyites is taking up all my time.
Have a good day.
Yes, McKinney! We all know deep down in the abject depths of our pitiful envy that rich people have no more power or influence than any randomly selected peon you would care to pull aside and interview.
I would elaborate a bit more, but neverending screeching matches with objectively awful Trotskyites is taking up all my time.
Have a good day.
Money is literally the power to buy a quart of milk. Or an election.
There is, after all, not really any point in having money otherwise. Certainly not billions of dollars of it.
I meant to address this and did not. I think you may be over-using power a bit. Money is a medium of exchange. You can’t use it to make someone do something they don’t want to do (in most cases, I’m sure someone could construct a hypo that proves this wrong). The point of having money for some people is influence. It isn’t power. The uber rich cannot compel a politician to be dishonest. The politician on the take was dishonest to begin with. Reducing the amount of money a person can have will not effect the corruption equation–it will simply take less to influence the already corrupt politician. All you do is scale down the cost of the influence.
Money is literally the power to buy a quart of milk. Or an election.
There is, after all, not really any point in having money otherwise. Certainly not billions of dollars of it.
I meant to address this and did not. I think you may be over-using power a bit. Money is a medium of exchange. You can’t use it to make someone do something they don’t want to do (in most cases, I’m sure someone could construct a hypo that proves this wrong). The point of having money for some people is influence. It isn’t power. The uber rich cannot compel a politician to be dishonest. The politician on the take was dishonest to begin with. Reducing the amount of money a person can have will not effect the corruption equation–it will simply take less to influence the already corrupt politician. All you do is scale down the cost of the influence.
I’m not aware of Gates or Bezos being particularly political, but I could be missing something.
Clearly you have not absorbed the far right thesis that Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post is why it is publishing stuff that is attached to reality. I.e., stuff that is not Trump-favoring delusional. And, reality being political these days….
I’m not aware of Gates or Bezos being particularly political, but I could be missing something.
Clearly you have not absorbed the far right thesis that Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post is why it is publishing stuff that is attached to reality. I.e., stuff that is not Trump-favoring delusional. And, reality being political these days….
I pretty much agree with this, as it relates to the makers of the problematic things. Where it gets more difficult is if the things (i.e. the works of art) contain problematic elements in themselves (as for example if the metal songs contained overtly racist or sexist lyrics obviously not deployed ironically).
Or Ezra Pound.
Here’s some food for thought:
https://slate.com/culture/2019/05/under-my-thumb-rolling-stones-romantic-songs-patriarchy.html
The project was called Romantic Songs of the Patriarchy, and it took place in the Mission District of San Francisco in the Women’s Building, a provider of health, social, and legal services to women.
It was by an Icelandic artist named Ragnar Kjartansson and it worked like this: Female musicians were positioned throughout the building on three consecutive days, and each one of them was assigned to sing one song that might sound romantic but which actually is pretty misogynistic.
Of course I look at that list of songs that Kjartanson has assembled and quibble about things like putting Nine Inch Nails’ “Closer” on the list, since it really never struck me as being patriarchal or even necessarily gendered.
I pretty much agree with this, as it relates to the makers of the problematic things. Where it gets more difficult is if the things (i.e. the works of art) contain problematic elements in themselves (as for example if the metal songs contained overtly racist or sexist lyrics obviously not deployed ironically).
Or Ezra Pound.
Here’s some food for thought:
https://slate.com/culture/2019/05/under-my-thumb-rolling-stones-romantic-songs-patriarchy.html
The project was called Romantic Songs of the Patriarchy, and it took place in the Mission District of San Francisco in the Women’s Building, a provider of health, social, and legal services to women.
It was by an Icelandic artist named Ragnar Kjartansson and it worked like this: Female musicians were positioned throughout the building on three consecutive days, and each one of them was assigned to sing one song that might sound romantic but which actually is pretty misogynistic.
Of course I look at that list of songs that Kjartanson has assembled and quibble about things like putting Nine Inch Nails’ “Closer” on the list, since it really never struck me as being patriarchal or even necessarily gendered.
Money is a medium of exchange. You can’t use it to make someone do something they don’t want to do (in most cases, I’m sure someone could construct a hypo that proves this wrong).
This rather flies in the face of the entire principle behind advertising. And money is what allows you to convince people to want something — whether it is a brand of automobile or of toothpaste or of politician.
Money is a medium of exchange. You can’t use it to make someone do something they don’t want to do (in most cases, I’m sure someone could construct a hypo that proves this wrong).
This rather flies in the face of the entire principle behind advertising. And money is what allows you to convince people to want something — whether it is a brand of automobile or of toothpaste or of politician.
I’m not aware of Gates or Bezos being particularly political,
I wouldn’t stick to a narrow definition of either “political” or “power.”
Charitable giving also gives these people enormous leverage in deciding what social priorities should be funded, priorities that some of us might think would be better decided democratically.
I’m not aware of Gates or Bezos being particularly political,
I wouldn’t stick to a narrow definition of either “political” or “power.”
Charitable giving also gives these people enormous leverage in deciding what social priorities should be funded, priorities that some of us might think would be better decided democratically.
OT but perhaps interesting to some
The science now says no masks for vaccinated people: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/health/cdc-masks-guidance.html#click=https://t.co/lPLgMvJX3O
Tangentially, for GftNC, I have spent a few weeks and a few tests to find that the standard tests say I have antibodies from having Covid(IGM) but no discernable spike protein antibodies(Igg) from being vaccinated.
Both of my doctors say that there is no reliable way to test for immunity, my RA doctor is more knowledgeable on infectious diseases, his advice was to discuss it at our next appointment, as for now I am safe and the CDC may have more data in three months.
People who are significantly immunocompromised(transplant patients etc.) are at much greater risk of this than I was.
OT but perhaps interesting to some
The science now says no masks for vaccinated people: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/health/cdc-masks-guidance.html#click=https://t.co/lPLgMvJX3O
Tangentially, for GftNC, I have spent a few weeks and a few tests to find that the standard tests say I have antibodies from having Covid(IGM) but no discernable spike protein antibodies(Igg) from being vaccinated.
Both of my doctors say that there is no reliable way to test for immunity, my RA doctor is more knowledgeable on infectious diseases, his advice was to discuss it at our next appointment, as for now I am safe and the CDC may have more data in three months.
People who are significantly immunocompromised(transplant patients etc.) are at much greater risk of this than I was.
Clearly you have not absorbed the far right thesis that Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post is why it is publishing stuff that is attached to reality. I.e., stuff that is not Trump-favoring delusional. And, reality being political these days….
I’m not sure how this illustrates Bezos being a political player.
This rather flies in the face of the entire principle behind advertising. And money is what allows you to convince people to want something — whether it is a brand of automobile or of toothpaste or of politician.
No, it does not. People cannot be forced to do something by an advertisement. Persuaded, duped, led by the nose, whatever, depending on degree of gullibility, yes. Forced, compelled against their will, no.
Most of us can see an advertisement and size up for ourselves whether, forex, State Farm is really on our side or not. (spoiler: it is not).
Charitable giving also gives these people enormous leverage in deciding what social priorities should be funded, priorities that some of us might think would be better decided democratically.
Would you mind giving me an example of where your concern lies?
And is the potential harm so great that it justifies limiting how much money people can accumulate or give away?
Clearly you have not absorbed the far right thesis that Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post is why it is publishing stuff that is attached to reality. I.e., stuff that is not Trump-favoring delusional. And, reality being political these days….
I’m not sure how this illustrates Bezos being a political player.
This rather flies in the face of the entire principle behind advertising. And money is what allows you to convince people to want something — whether it is a brand of automobile or of toothpaste or of politician.
No, it does not. People cannot be forced to do something by an advertisement. Persuaded, duped, led by the nose, whatever, depending on degree of gullibility, yes. Forced, compelled against their will, no.
Most of us can see an advertisement and size up for ourselves whether, forex, State Farm is really on our side or not. (spoiler: it is not).
Charitable giving also gives these people enormous leverage in deciding what social priorities should be funded, priorities that some of us might think would be better decided democratically.
Would you mind giving me an example of where your concern lies?
And is the potential harm so great that it justifies limiting how much money people can accumulate or give away?
Despite the antipathy here for the free market (unfree markets are the best!–really?)
Non-worship is not the same as antipathy. And the idea that there’s such a thing as a truly free market is dubious. What is a free market, exactly? Free of fraud, monopolization, price-fixing? Or free of whatever mechanisms are in place in an attempt to prevent those things?
I don’t think a single person here is advocating for abolishing market forces or free enterprise in the economy. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the government confiscate the means of production. Or to outlaw super-yachts (Let’s not get fixated!), for that matter.
For myself, and I would guess others, it’s a matter of pushing back on the idea that the government should be almost (or not even almost) completely hands off when it comes to the economy. Neither the market nor the government are the solution to the vast majority of economic problems.
From another angle, I would say that we’ve reached a point where we have to question the idea that (at least non-disabled) people must work to avoid a life of hellish desperation. You want to hop on a plane to spend a week on a tropical island? You better get a job unless you’re lucky enough to be independently wealthy. You want to eat nourishing food and not die of exposure? Well, okay. Sit out of the work force if you’re good with that. There are plenty of people willing to work for things beyond basic necessities.
Despite the antipathy here for the free market (unfree markets are the best!–really?)
Non-worship is not the same as antipathy. And the idea that there’s such a thing as a truly free market is dubious. What is a free market, exactly? Free of fraud, monopolization, price-fixing? Or free of whatever mechanisms are in place in an attempt to prevent those things?
I don’t think a single person here is advocating for abolishing market forces or free enterprise in the economy. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the government confiscate the means of production. Or to outlaw super-yachts (Let’s not get fixated!), for that matter.
For myself, and I would guess others, it’s a matter of pushing back on the idea that the government should be almost (or not even almost) completely hands off when it comes to the economy. Neither the market nor the government are the solution to the vast majority of economic problems.
From another angle, I would say that we’ve reached a point where we have to question the idea that (at least non-disabled) people must work to avoid a life of hellish desperation. You want to hop on a plane to spend a week on a tropical island? You better get a job unless you’re lucky enough to be independently wealthy. You want to eat nourishing food and not die of exposure? Well, okay. Sit out of the work force if you’re good with that. There are plenty of people willing to work for things beyond basic necessities.
“You want to eat nourishing food and not die of exposure? Well, okay. Sit out of the work force if you’re good with that.:
This is really what we have today, fragmented, sometimes hard to navigate but I know a non-trivial number of people who just don’t work.
The discussion is really what is an acceptable floor, and how do you ensure people don’t squander that and still become homeless. Then perhaps making the support more streamlined makes sense.
“You want to eat nourishing food and not die of exposure? Well, okay. Sit out of the work force if you’re good with that.:
This is really what we have today, fragmented, sometimes hard to navigate but I know a non-trivial number of people who just don’t work.
The discussion is really what is an acceptable floor, and how do you ensure people don’t squander that and still become homeless. Then perhaps making the support more streamlined makes sense.
I will offer only this one example, because a McK Rules point-scoring debate is not my cup of tea.
I will offer only this one example, because a McK Rules point-scoring debate is not my cup of tea.
The power, or influence, that bothers you is, to use a popular formulation around here, “baked in” to pretty much any human endeavor, particularly where large and diverse populations are concerned.
To the extent that this is true, it’s just a naturalistic fallacy.
There certainly *is* a fundamental tendency in the system for wealth and power to concentrate. The Matthew Effect. Money and power have gravity. Monopoly is the best business to be in. Etc.
But that’s simultaneously an argument against the idea that most of that wealth is “earned” in any meaningful way, an argument for actively correcting that tendency.
Just like we treat our natural lack of fur by wearing clothes, or our natural lack of wings by building airplanes, one of the treatments for this particular undesirable natural condition is extremely high taxes on wealth.
A byproduct of mass produced, affordable and desirable goods is that someone is going to sit at the top of the organization that manages to find a given product that meets with widespread consumer desire.
It’s incredibly naive to think that this is the way firms like Google or Facebook actually work. There’s a spark of truth to that framework when novel firms are just getting started, perhaps, but it utterly fails to account for the ways in which firms accelerate and maintain dominance once they have it. (Which isn’t done malevolently, per se, a lot of it is just various manifestations of the Matthew Effect again. But we still don’t need to let it happen.)
It’s also an error to treat “consumer desire” as an exogenous factor. Consumer desire is so path dependent, not to mention heavily constructed and manipulated by advertising, that it’s largely impossible to determine what, if anything, might be fundamental.
Bigger organizations produce economies of scale that make life better for people with modest means.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that most corporations reach peak economies of scale and then stop to let other competitors in.
In the absence of effective regulatory limits on size, we should expect most firms to have grown to sizes far beyond what they’d need just to maximize scale efficiencies. (In fact, there’s probably a case to be made that a lot of firms are too big, and are somewhat less efficient on net. Remember the old adage about how firms are little islands of central planning in a free market sea. And some modern firms are more like continents.)
There’s also no reason to accept big autocratic organizations. In the case of natural monopolies, or industries that need huge monolithic organizations to reach acceptable economies of scale, we can require that they operate as cooperatives, or public benefit corporations, or outright public utilities (or all three).
One of these statements is wrong. Either Amazon is able to hire 798,000 (per Google) people for shit jobs because the job market is super shitty and they don’t have any other, better opportunities OR it’s not a big deal for the grunts in the yacht building business (and the hundreds of sub-contractors and sub-suppliers) when the indignant decide super yachts consumers are grotesque
Or *both* are right. Maybe the job market is shitty because people are systematically kept in a state of fragility to maintain low wages and maximize returns to capital. Which profit takers use to buy yachts.
But in a world where the job market wasn’t shitty, people working in Amazon warehouses would be earning decent wages, and have disposable income to buy lots of houses or fine furniture or (smaller) boats, etc.
I am defending against those people who think they know and have the right to tell others how much they should be allowed to have and that they have the right to tell people how to spend their money.
In what world does society not have that right?
There are no billionaires living alone in the wilderness. Zero. The very idea of being a billionaire depends on having millions of consumers to sell your product to and investors to trade your stock with. It depends on having a society that recognizes the concept of money and often extremely abstract forms of property “rights”. Being a billionaire is entirely a social construct. Tip to toe.
As a society we have every right to re-imagine and re-negotiate that social construct.
The power, or influence, that bothers you is, to use a popular formulation around here, “baked in” to pretty much any human endeavor, particularly where large and diverse populations are concerned.
To the extent that this is true, it’s just a naturalistic fallacy.
There certainly *is* a fundamental tendency in the system for wealth and power to concentrate. The Matthew Effect. Money and power have gravity. Monopoly is the best business to be in. Etc.
But that’s simultaneously an argument against the idea that most of that wealth is “earned” in any meaningful way, an argument for actively correcting that tendency.
Just like we treat our natural lack of fur by wearing clothes, or our natural lack of wings by building airplanes, one of the treatments for this particular undesirable natural condition is extremely high taxes on wealth.
A byproduct of mass produced, affordable and desirable goods is that someone is going to sit at the top of the organization that manages to find a given product that meets with widespread consumer desire.
It’s incredibly naive to think that this is the way firms like Google or Facebook actually work. There’s a spark of truth to that framework when novel firms are just getting started, perhaps, but it utterly fails to account for the ways in which firms accelerate and maintain dominance once they have it. (Which isn’t done malevolently, per se, a lot of it is just various manifestations of the Matthew Effect again. But we still don’t need to let it happen.)
It’s also an error to treat “consumer desire” as an exogenous factor. Consumer desire is so path dependent, not to mention heavily constructed and manipulated by advertising, that it’s largely impossible to determine what, if anything, might be fundamental.
Bigger organizations produce economies of scale that make life better for people with modest means.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that most corporations reach peak economies of scale and then stop to let other competitors in.
In the absence of effective regulatory limits on size, we should expect most firms to have grown to sizes far beyond what they’d need just to maximize scale efficiencies. (In fact, there’s probably a case to be made that a lot of firms are too big, and are somewhat less efficient on net. Remember the old adage about how firms are little islands of central planning in a free market sea. And some modern firms are more like continents.)
There’s also no reason to accept big autocratic organizations. In the case of natural monopolies, or industries that need huge monolithic organizations to reach acceptable economies of scale, we can require that they operate as cooperatives, or public benefit corporations, or outright public utilities (or all three).
One of these statements is wrong. Either Amazon is able to hire 798,000 (per Google) people for shit jobs because the job market is super shitty and they don’t have any other, better opportunities OR it’s not a big deal for the grunts in the yacht building business (and the hundreds of sub-contractors and sub-suppliers) when the indignant decide super yachts consumers are grotesque
Or *both* are right. Maybe the job market is shitty because people are systematically kept in a state of fragility to maintain low wages and maximize returns to capital. Which profit takers use to buy yachts.
But in a world where the job market wasn’t shitty, people working in Amazon warehouses would be earning decent wages, and have disposable income to buy lots of houses or fine furniture or (smaller) boats, etc.
I am defending against those people who think they know and have the right to tell others how much they should be allowed to have and that they have the right to tell people how to spend their money.
In what world does society not have that right?
There are no billionaires living alone in the wilderness. Zero. The very idea of being a billionaire depends on having millions of consumers to sell your product to and investors to trade your stock with. It depends on having a society that recognizes the concept of money and often extremely abstract forms of property “rights”. Being a billionaire is entirely a social construct. Tip to toe.
As a society we have every right to re-imagine and re-negotiate that social construct.
how do you ensure people don’t squander that and still become homeless
Slightly aside from the minimum income question, I would also ask how you ensure that people in need are treated with some level of basic dignity.
Knowing someone who is likely to need the disability system eventually, and wildly unlikely to get approved for it [long story, not mine to tell], I have some familiarity with what people have to go through to get assistance, and how often they fail, despite the need.
how do you ensure people don’t squander that and still become homeless
Slightly aside from the minimum income question, I would also ask how you ensure that people in need are treated with some level of basic dignity.
Knowing someone who is likely to need the disability system eventually, and wildly unlikely to get approved for it [long story, not mine to tell], I have some familiarity with what people have to go through to get assistance, and how often they fail, despite the need.
I don’t think a single person here is advocating for abolishing market forces or free enterprise in the economy. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the government confiscate the means of production. Or to outlaw super-yachts (Let’s not get fixated!), for that matter.
I suspect there are several here who would do much of the above. And, the discussion is very much about how much people should be allowed to accumulate and what they should be allowed to do with what they have.
For myself, and I would guess others, it’s a matter of pushing back on the idea that the government should be almost (or not even almost) completely hands off when it comes to the economy. Neither the market nor the government are the solution to the vast majority of economic problems.
I can assure the gov’t is not hands off. Courtesy of the Dept of Labor, my firm’s 401K document is over 300 pages long. It’s all bullshit, but it’s there. Every year my CPA does a K-1 for me and my partner. It runs over 75 pages when it is plain as day how much income we have and what our expenses are.
There are a crap ton of direct gov’t interventions in the market and in the economy, many of which I support–OSHA, 40 hour work week, time and half, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, EPA and a ton of other stuff.
A free market, to answer another of your questions cannot be defined with complete precision any more than the ‘rule of law’ has a handy, one-size-fits all definition, but it does have some clear markers: (1) first of all, known, predictable and enforced rules (everything from driving rules to a federal constitution much like ours with a Bill of Rights much like ours), (2) a strong presumption that any legal enterprise (as opposed to drug dealing or pimping or murder for hire) operating within the “rules” has a right to operate, to grow, to expand etc without government hindrance and without being voted out of business by people who disapprove of success beyond a certain point, (3) the right to challenge illegal interference in one’s enterprise by third party actors, including gov’t actors and, my personal favorite, (4) access to a court system that is reasonably fair and impartial.
From another angle, I would say that we’ve reached a point where we have to question the idea that (at least non-disabled) people must work to avoid a life of hellish desperation.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that able-bodied people should have the right to not work yet be supported by their fellow citizens? My view: not only no, but hell no. Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
I don’t think a single person here is advocating for abolishing market forces or free enterprise in the economy. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the government confiscate the means of production. Or to outlaw super-yachts (Let’s not get fixated!), for that matter.
I suspect there are several here who would do much of the above. And, the discussion is very much about how much people should be allowed to accumulate and what they should be allowed to do with what they have.
For myself, and I would guess others, it’s a matter of pushing back on the idea that the government should be almost (or not even almost) completely hands off when it comes to the economy. Neither the market nor the government are the solution to the vast majority of economic problems.
I can assure the gov’t is not hands off. Courtesy of the Dept of Labor, my firm’s 401K document is over 300 pages long. It’s all bullshit, but it’s there. Every year my CPA does a K-1 for me and my partner. It runs over 75 pages when it is plain as day how much income we have and what our expenses are.
There are a crap ton of direct gov’t interventions in the market and in the economy, many of which I support–OSHA, 40 hour work week, time and half, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, EPA and a ton of other stuff.
A free market, to answer another of your questions cannot be defined with complete precision any more than the ‘rule of law’ has a handy, one-size-fits all definition, but it does have some clear markers: (1) first of all, known, predictable and enforced rules (everything from driving rules to a federal constitution much like ours with a Bill of Rights much like ours), (2) a strong presumption that any legal enterprise (as opposed to drug dealing or pimping or murder for hire) operating within the “rules” has a right to operate, to grow, to expand etc without government hindrance and without being voted out of business by people who disapprove of success beyond a certain point, (3) the right to challenge illegal interference in one’s enterprise by third party actors, including gov’t actors and, my personal favorite, (4) access to a court system that is reasonably fair and impartial.
From another angle, I would say that we’ve reached a point where we have to question the idea that (at least non-disabled) people must work to avoid a life of hellish desperation.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that able-bodied people should have the right to not work yet be supported by their fellow citizens? My view: not only no, but hell no. Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
It’s also an error to treat “consumer desire” as an exogenous factor. Consumer desire is so path dependent, not to mention heavily constructed and manipulated by advertising, that it’s largely impossible to determine what, if anything, might be fundamental.
Or as Jared Diamond wrote, “Invention is the mother of necessity.”
It’s also an error to treat “consumer desire” as an exogenous factor. Consumer desire is so path dependent, not to mention heavily constructed and manipulated by advertising, that it’s largely impossible to determine what, if anything, might be fundamental.
Or as Jared Diamond wrote, “Invention is the mother of necessity.”
Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
Except that the need for human labor is insufficient to require full employment.
Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
Except that the need for human labor is insufficient to require full employment.
I am defending against those people who think they know and have the right to tell others how much they should be allowed to have and that they have the right to tell people how to spend their money.
I am defending against those people who think they have the right to grab orders of magnitude more than their share of the goods of the earth, while other people starve, literally and figuratively.
McKinney’s philosophy, under all the obfuscating layers, says that whatever you can grab is yours, and no one else has the right to tell you otherwise. If you’re good at grabbing, by god go for it.
I am defending against those people who think they know and have the right to tell others how much they should be allowed to have and that they have the right to tell people how to spend their money.
I am defending against those people who think they have the right to grab orders of magnitude more than their share of the goods of the earth, while other people starve, literally and figuratively.
McKinney’s philosophy, under all the obfuscating layers, says that whatever you can grab is yours, and no one else has the right to tell you otherwise. If you’re good at grabbing, by god go for it.
I will offer only this one example, because a McK Rules point-scoring debate is not my cup of tea.
Ok, thanks for responding. Would you be ok if the Gates’ spent the same amount of money promoting women’s rights in the Third World?
In what world does society not have that right?
The one I live in, at least up until now. You could pass a law saying citizens can only own X amount of property or assets or whatever but it would be stricken down. You could pass a law saying citizens cannot buy hoolahoops or rowboats, but it would likely be stricken down as well. Currently, Americans can go as far in life as their efforts will take them. I like it that way. Or, putting it differently, I like it a lot better than I like a world in which people I disagree with can hem me in with their rules because they have the power of the state to enforce their will.
I will offer only this one example, because a McK Rules point-scoring debate is not my cup of tea.
Ok, thanks for responding. Would you be ok if the Gates’ spent the same amount of money promoting women’s rights in the Third World?
In what world does society not have that right?
The one I live in, at least up until now. You could pass a law saying citizens can only own X amount of property or assets or whatever but it would be stricken down. You could pass a law saying citizens cannot buy hoolahoops or rowboats, but it would likely be stricken down as well. Currently, Americans can go as far in life as their efforts will take them. I like it that way. Or, putting it differently, I like it a lot better than I like a world in which people I disagree with can hem me in with their rules because they have the power of the state to enforce their will.
Marty, thanks for update on immunity info. Fingers crossed.
Or Ezra Pound
Another excellent example, as I believe (although to a lesser extent) was T S Eliot.
McKinney, I think your definitions are (not for the first time) overly narrow. Murdoch is without question a political player, and to the extent that Bezos has ever influenced the direction of the WaPo, so is he (although I don’t know if he has chosen to do so).
I was interested in your inclusion of Soros with the likes of the Kochs and the Mercers. I was not aware that he had interfered as much politically (particularly in the US) as they have, despite the rabid and fairly openly antisemitic attempts to demonise him by various rightwingers and rightwing media outlets, but I freely admit I may have missed information to the contrary. Is there much/any?
Marty, thanks for update on immunity info. Fingers crossed.
Or Ezra Pound
Another excellent example, as I believe (although to a lesser extent) was T S Eliot.
McKinney, I think your definitions are (not for the first time) overly narrow. Murdoch is without question a political player, and to the extent that Bezos has ever influenced the direction of the WaPo, so is he (although I don’t know if he has chosen to do so).
I was interested in your inclusion of Soros with the likes of the Kochs and the Mercers. I was not aware that he had interfered as much politically (particularly in the US) as they have, despite the rabid and fairly openly antisemitic attempts to demonise him by various rightwingers and rightwing media outlets, but I freely admit I may have missed information to the contrary. Is there much/any?
McKinney’s philosophy, under all the obfuscating layers, says that whatever you can grab is yours, and no one else has the right to tell you otherwise. If you’re good at grabbing, by god go for it.
Grab? Hmmm. Well, now that you put it that way, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
McKinney’s philosophy, under all the obfuscating layers, says that whatever you can grab is yours, and no one else has the right to tell you otherwise. If you’re good at grabbing, by god go for it.
Grab? Hmmm. Well, now that you put it that way, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
I meant to address this and did not. I think you may be over-using power a bit. Money is a medium of exchange. You can’t use it to make someone do something they don’t want to do (in most cases, I’m sure someone could construct a hypo that proves this wrong). The point of having money for some people is influence. It isn’t power.
I am simplifying a little. I do not mean to imply that money and other kinds of power are perfectly fungible. In fact, that’s precisely the point: we can alter the system to make them even less fungible. Influence is another kind of power.
As to making someone do something they don’t want to do, well, Google says there are about 3 billion wage earners in the world right now. I’ll let you tell me how many of them you think want to do whatever it is they do all day.
The uber rich cannot compel a politician to be dishonest. The politician on the take was dishonest to begin with. Reducing the amount of money a person can have will not effect the corruption equation–it will simply take less to influence the already corrupt politician. All you do is scale down the cost of the influence.
This is exactly backwards. If 10,000 people can afford to give $100 each, and 1 guy can afford to give $1,000,000, guess who gets listened to? The latter guy doesn’t even need to give the whole million — $10,000 or so will be plenty to get him sorted straight to the top of the donor list and earn a personal phone call or two.
If you take away the second guy’s millions, knock him down to the level of everyone else, you largely solve the problem. You can have a closer approximation of democracy, at least.
I meant to address this and did not. I think you may be over-using power a bit. Money is a medium of exchange. You can’t use it to make someone do something they don’t want to do (in most cases, I’m sure someone could construct a hypo that proves this wrong). The point of having money for some people is influence. It isn’t power.
I am simplifying a little. I do not mean to imply that money and other kinds of power are perfectly fungible. In fact, that’s precisely the point: we can alter the system to make them even less fungible. Influence is another kind of power.
As to making someone do something they don’t want to do, well, Google says there are about 3 billion wage earners in the world right now. I’ll let you tell me how many of them you think want to do whatever it is they do all day.
The uber rich cannot compel a politician to be dishonest. The politician on the take was dishonest to begin with. Reducing the amount of money a person can have will not effect the corruption equation–it will simply take less to influence the already corrupt politician. All you do is scale down the cost of the influence.
This is exactly backwards. If 10,000 people can afford to give $100 each, and 1 guy can afford to give $1,000,000, guess who gets listened to? The latter guy doesn’t even need to give the whole million — $10,000 or so will be plenty to get him sorted straight to the top of the donor list and earn a personal phone call or two.
If you take away the second guy’s millions, knock him down to the level of everyone else, you largely solve the problem. You can have a closer approximation of democracy, at least.
Except that the need for human labor is insufficient to require full employment.
Can you demonstrate this?
Except that the need for human labor is insufficient to require full employment.
Can you demonstrate this?
Would you be ok if the Gates’ spent the same amount of money promoting women’s rights in the Third World?
You mean the Gateses?
And I said I wasn’t responding to any more of your clever debating points, but one more:
I am not okay with the Gateses having that amount of money in the first place. [In other words, I’m “pissy,” “jealous” (no way, I wouldn’t take it on a platter), “indignant” — and I forget all the other pejorative adjectives Mr. “Stop Ad Hom-ing Me” has applied those who hold more or less the same position I do].
So, no. Since you apparently can’t extend the logic, my ideas of social priorities are no more “democratic” than those of Bill and Melinda. How to use such vast resources should be a collective decision, not an individual one, even if the individual is me. Or to say it yet again, the vast resources the earth provides belong to all of us, not to a handful of the grabbiest. The decisions about their allocation should also belong to all of us.
Would you be ok if the Gates’ spent the same amount of money promoting women’s rights in the Third World?
You mean the Gateses?
And I said I wasn’t responding to any more of your clever debating points, but one more:
I am not okay with the Gateses having that amount of money in the first place. [In other words, I’m “pissy,” “jealous” (no way, I wouldn’t take it on a platter), “indignant” — and I forget all the other pejorative adjectives Mr. “Stop Ad Hom-ing Me” has applied those who hold more or less the same position I do].
So, no. Since you apparently can’t extend the logic, my ideas of social priorities are no more “democratic” than those of Bill and Melinda. How to use such vast resources should be a collective decision, not an individual one, even if the individual is me. Or to say it yet again, the vast resources the earth provides belong to all of us, not to a handful of the grabbiest. The decisions about their allocation should also belong to all of us.
I sometimes feel that much of the commentariat here read Babbit in the 9th grade and never got over it.
and i feel like conservative economics is based around the unproven assumption that The Market not only knows best but is best and will work for us all, if we just let it. but that’s simply dogma.
the market is us. we can do what we want to with it. there is no invisible hand. the hand is us and it’s only invisible if you close your eyes.
I sometimes feel that much of the commentariat here read Babbit in the 9th grade and never got over it.
and i feel like conservative economics is based around the unproven assumption that The Market not only knows best but is best and will work for us all, if we just let it. but that’s simply dogma.
the market is us. we can do what we want to with it. there is no invisible hand. the hand is us and it’s only invisible if you close your eyes.
Courtesy of the Dept of Labor, my firm’s 401K document is over 300 pages long. It’s all bullshit, but it’s there. Every year my CPA does a K-1 for me and my partner. It runs over 75 pages when it is plain as day how much income we have and what our expenses are.
Thus the Dept. of Labor assures gainful employment for CPAs. Obviously, just like with builders of superyachts, we need to avoid changing this, lest we create unemployment.
Courtesy of the Dept of Labor, my firm’s 401K document is over 300 pages long. It’s all bullshit, but it’s there. Every year my CPA does a K-1 for me and my partner. It runs over 75 pages when it is plain as day how much income we have and what our expenses are.
Thus the Dept. of Labor assures gainful employment for CPAs. Obviously, just like with builders of superyachts, we need to avoid changing this, lest we create unemployment.
Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
What an asshole.
Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
What an asshole.
So, no. Since you apparently can’t extend the logic, my ideas of social priorities are no more “democratic” than those of Bill and Melinda. How to use such vast resources should be a collective decision, not an individual one, even if the individual is me. Or to say it yet again, the vast resources the earth provides belong to all of us, not to a handful of the grabbiest. The decisions about their allocation should also belong to all of us.
+1 million
So, no. Since you apparently can’t extend the logic, my ideas of social priorities are no more “democratic” than those of Bill and Melinda. How to use such vast resources should be a collective decision, not an individual one, even if the individual is me. Or to say it yet again, the vast resources the earth provides belong to all of us, not to a handful of the grabbiest. The decisions about their allocation should also belong to all of us.
+1 million
By the way McKinney, when you have a minute I am particularly interested in the answer to my Soros question, as a genuine quest for information. The multiple mad accusations made against him by Fox and GOP politicians notwithstanding, I suppose it is perfectly possible he has intervened in the US in ways of which I am unaware, and I would be interested to know if that is so.
By the way McKinney, when you have a minute I am particularly interested in the answer to my Soros question, as a genuine quest for information. The multiple mad accusations made against him by Fox and GOP politicians notwithstanding, I suppose it is perfectly possible he has intervened in the US in ways of which I am unaware, and I would be interested to know if that is so.
The one I live in, at least up until now. You could pass a law saying citizens can only own X amount of property or assets or whatever but it would be stricken down. You could pass a law saying citizens cannot buy hoolahoops or rowboats, but it would likely be stricken down as well.
That’s nonsense on at least a couple of levels.
One, I don’t think it’s true even given current law and jurisprudence. There’s no constitutional prohibition on raising income, property and estate taxes to effectively confiscatory levels. I don’t think it’d make it through the current Congress, obviously, but AFAIK it’s not prima facie illegal or unconstitutional. Ditto bans on hula hoops and rowboats. (You might have to come up with some nominal reason to do so, but “hula hoops can cause back injuries” would probably suffice. And there are plenty of ways to restrict things without outright bans. Oar taxes, say, or rowboat operation licenses.)
Two, even if these things were somehow currently unconstitutional, the Constitution itself can be changed. As a democratic polity we can decide to make that happen.
Three, I wasn’t talking about written laws or constitutions there anyway. I’m responding to the idea that telling a billionaire what they are and aren’t permitted to do with money is somehow unjustified or immoral on a deeply fundamental level. And it’s not. It’s just society.
The one I live in, at least up until now. You could pass a law saying citizens can only own X amount of property or assets or whatever but it would be stricken down. You could pass a law saying citizens cannot buy hoolahoops or rowboats, but it would likely be stricken down as well.
That’s nonsense on at least a couple of levels.
One, I don’t think it’s true even given current law and jurisprudence. There’s no constitutional prohibition on raising income, property and estate taxes to effectively confiscatory levels. I don’t think it’d make it through the current Congress, obviously, but AFAIK it’s not prima facie illegal or unconstitutional. Ditto bans on hula hoops and rowboats. (You might have to come up with some nominal reason to do so, but “hula hoops can cause back injuries” would probably suffice. And there are plenty of ways to restrict things without outright bans. Oar taxes, say, or rowboat operation licenses.)
Two, even if these things were somehow currently unconstitutional, the Constitution itself can be changed. As a democratic polity we can decide to make that happen.
Three, I wasn’t talking about written laws or constitutions there anyway. I’m responding to the idea that telling a billionaire what they are and aren’t permitted to do with money is somehow unjustified or immoral on a deeply fundamental level. And it’s not. It’s just society.
Let me note that it was the private sector that came up with vaccines
Barney Graham would be interested to hear this.
Let me note that it was the private sector that came up with vaccines
Barney Graham would be interested to hear this.
Grab? Hmmm. Well, now that you put it that way, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
I’d like to introduce you to my friend Excluded Middle. I think you two could really hit it off.
Grab? Hmmm. Well, now that you put it that way, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
I’d like to introduce you to my friend Excluded Middle. I think you two could really hit it off.
No one mentioned Soros, which is kind of interesting but not surprising.
I thought of Soros, but I’m actually not sure he is the political player that he is portrayed to be.
In the last couple of cycles, at least, I’d say Bloomberg’s money made a bigger dent.
But yes, it is a bipartisan thing.
To touch on some of your other points:
I’m not sure anybody here is saying Bezos shouldn’t be allowed to buy a yacht. Or ten yachts.
If I’m not mistaken, what people are saying here is (a) that is a freaking obscene amount of money to pay for a boat, and (b) conspicuous consumption at that level makes it hard to argue against raising taxes on the very wealthy.
And, I would argue that a luxury tax on things like half-billion-dollar yachts is unlikely to have a negative effect on the well-being of anybody, including the people who buy them.
If you want to argue that a luxury tax on yachts is going to cripple the yachting industry, I think you have your work cut out for you. If you want to argue that a dip in yacht sales is going to have a serious negative effect on the economy as a whole, even more so.
One of these statements is wrong.
The two things are not commensurate.
Shipbuilding in the US as a whole employs about 137K people. Most of the shipbuilding-specific jobs involved are somewhere between skilled trades work up through highly skilled and specialized engineering. A lot of the jobs are common manufacturing industry jobs – IT, marketing, management.
‘Ship building’ encompasses everything from yachts to naval craft to working boats of all types to the kinds of recreational boats that the non-billionaires of the world buy and enjoy. The global shipbuilding market is worth about $130 billion, yacht building specifically is worth about $8 billion. Most of the luxury yacht business is not in the US.
If fewer yachts were sold, the folks who make them would… make other kinds of ships. There would be less work for the folks who do luxury fitments. What percent they make up of the 137K folks employed in shipbuilding isn’t that clear, but it’s probably not very many.
Grunt work at Amazon is mostly order picking and other kinds of warehouse work. It’s not particularly skilled work.
They are really, really different employment scenarios.
Ok, let me narrow the question
I think you’re actually asking a different question.
People I’m aware of on the right who I consider to be good-faith spokespeople for their point of view:
Gary Johnson
Evan McMullin
John Kasich
Daniel Larison
Ben Wittes
Wittes is arguably conservative but not ‘on the right’, but I’m including him anyway.
I disagree profoundly with all of the above, would prefer that none of them hold any level of political power, but I don’t think any of them engage in bad faith, at least in general.
The science now says no masks for vaccinated people
Yes, saw that, and hip hip hooray. Still limited clearance for live music here in MA, but it’s on its way. We can see it from here.
I’m not sure I personally will be headed for the bar right away but I think this guidance opens the door folks who want to.
No one mentioned Soros, which is kind of interesting but not surprising.
I thought of Soros, but I’m actually not sure he is the political player that he is portrayed to be.
In the last couple of cycles, at least, I’d say Bloomberg’s money made a bigger dent.
But yes, it is a bipartisan thing.
To touch on some of your other points:
I’m not sure anybody here is saying Bezos shouldn’t be allowed to buy a yacht. Or ten yachts.
If I’m not mistaken, what people are saying here is (a) that is a freaking obscene amount of money to pay for a boat, and (b) conspicuous consumption at that level makes it hard to argue against raising taxes on the very wealthy.
And, I would argue that a luxury tax on things like half-billion-dollar yachts is unlikely to have a negative effect on the well-being of anybody, including the people who buy them.
If you want to argue that a luxury tax on yachts is going to cripple the yachting industry, I think you have your work cut out for you. If you want to argue that a dip in yacht sales is going to have a serious negative effect on the economy as a whole, even more so.
One of these statements is wrong.
The two things are not commensurate.
Shipbuilding in the US as a whole employs about 137K people. Most of the shipbuilding-specific jobs involved are somewhere between skilled trades work up through highly skilled and specialized engineering. A lot of the jobs are common manufacturing industry jobs – IT, marketing, management.
‘Ship building’ encompasses everything from yachts to naval craft to working boats of all types to the kinds of recreational boats that the non-billionaires of the world buy and enjoy. The global shipbuilding market is worth about $130 billion, yacht building specifically is worth about $8 billion. Most of the luxury yacht business is not in the US.
If fewer yachts were sold, the folks who make them would… make other kinds of ships. There would be less work for the folks who do luxury fitments. What percent they make up of the 137K folks employed in shipbuilding isn’t that clear, but it’s probably not very many.
Grunt work at Amazon is mostly order picking and other kinds of warehouse work. It’s not particularly skilled work.
They are really, really different employment scenarios.
Ok, let me narrow the question
I think you’re actually asking a different question.
People I’m aware of on the right who I consider to be good-faith spokespeople for their point of view:
Gary Johnson
Evan McMullin
John Kasich
Daniel Larison
Ben Wittes
Wittes is arguably conservative but not ‘on the right’, but I’m including him anyway.
I disagree profoundly with all of the above, would prefer that none of them hold any level of political power, but I don’t think any of them engage in bad faith, at least in general.
The science now says no masks for vaccinated people
Yes, saw that, and hip hip hooray. Still limited clearance for live music here in MA, but it’s on its way. We can see it from here.
I’m not sure I personally will be headed for the bar right away but I think this guidance opens the door folks who want to.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that able-bodied people should have the right to not work yet be supported by their fellow citizens? My view: not only no, but hell no. Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
I agree with McKTx that we should abolish inherited wealth now.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that able-bodied people should have the right to not work yet be supported by their fellow citizens? My view: not only no, but hell no. Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
I agree with McKTx that we should abolish inherited wealth now.
Life has never given free riders a pass.
mandatory C19 vaccines it is, then!
Life has never given free riders a pass.
mandatory C19 vaccines it is, then!
In the absence of any info so far on Soros, I went looking. Apart from supporting HRC, and some reformist DA candidates, his interference in US politics looks mostly confined (for the last 25 years or so) to a series of serious, fairly highbrow, centre-left books on macro-economic matters and global political philosophy. Hmmm. Seems like a far cry from the Kochs, Mercers and Murdochs of this world, who apart from their rightwing ideologies are all, and perfectly obviously, out to further enrich themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/06/the-george-soros-philosophy-and-its-fatal-flaw
In the absence of any info so far on Soros, I went looking. Apart from supporting HRC, and some reformist DA candidates, his interference in US politics looks mostly confined (for the last 25 years or so) to a series of serious, fairly highbrow, centre-left books on macro-economic matters and global political philosophy. Hmmm. Seems like a far cry from the Kochs, Mercers and Murdochs of this world, who apart from their rightwing ideologies are all, and perfectly obviously, out to further enrich themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/06/the-george-soros-philosophy-and-its-fatal-flaw
GFTNC, here is a link that is an example of what I’m referring to:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519
I’m responding to the idea that telling a billionaire what they are and aren’t permitted to do with money is somehow unjustified or immoral on a deeply fundamental level. And it’s not. It’s just society.
If what the billionaire is doing is legal and you are treating that person differently simply because of his/her wealth, yes that is unjustified, immoral and no it is not “just society.” It may be the world you’d like to see, but it is the opposite of my world.
If I’m not mistaken, what people are saying here is (a) that is a freaking obscene amount of money to pay for a boat, and (b) conspicuous consumption at that level makes it hard to argue against raising taxes on the very wealthy.
I would use ‘stupid’ where you use ‘obscene’. My view, as I stated above, I’d rather they spend their money on stuff that is made by people who can support themselves with their jobs. I agree with the (b) part as well but I’d max out at 50% of earned income (over 2M adjusted for inflation) . I would leave cap gains at 20% for assets held 5yrs +, 25% for 3yrs + and 30% for >1 yr but <3yrs.
I agree with McKTx that we should abolish inherited wealth now.
I think you know that’s not what I said. Free riders do not have the right to call on their fellow citizens for support. If their families are dumb enough to support them, that’s their own business.
GFTNC, here is a link that is an example of what I’m referring to:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519
I’m responding to the idea that telling a billionaire what they are and aren’t permitted to do with money is somehow unjustified or immoral on a deeply fundamental level. And it’s not. It’s just society.
If what the billionaire is doing is legal and you are treating that person differently simply because of his/her wealth, yes that is unjustified, immoral and no it is not “just society.” It may be the world you’d like to see, but it is the opposite of my world.
If I’m not mistaken, what people are saying here is (a) that is a freaking obscene amount of money to pay for a boat, and (b) conspicuous consumption at that level makes it hard to argue against raising taxes on the very wealthy.
I would use ‘stupid’ where you use ‘obscene’. My view, as I stated above, I’d rather they spend their money on stuff that is made by people who can support themselves with their jobs. I agree with the (b) part as well but I’d max out at 50% of earned income (over 2M adjusted for inflation) . I would leave cap gains at 20% for assets held 5yrs +, 25% for 3yrs + and 30% for >1 yr but <3yrs.
I agree with McKTx that we should abolish inherited wealth now.
I think you know that’s not what I said. Free riders do not have the right to call on their fellow citizens for support. If their families are dumb enough to support them, that’s their own business.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that able-bodied people should have the right to not work yet be supported by their fellow citizens? My view: not only no, but hell no. Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
I feel pretty good about saying no, you’re not reading that right.
There is big, wide, cosmic gulf between “free rider” and “lives in a society wealthy enough to allow its members the freedom to find their own fulfilling ways to contribute”.
I’d also gently suggest that maybe the way you’re leaping straight from “no more hellish desperation” to “zomg, what about the rotten freeloaders” might say more about you than it does about humanity.
(This takes us back a couple of pages, but I’d say humanity has always been about taking care of each other, to the greatest extent we can. That ability to cooperate socially is kind of our thing. There are hundred thousand year old neanderthal remains showing clear evidence of a society that takes care of individuals even when they can’t contribute themselves.)
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that able-bodied people should have the right to not work yet be supported by their fellow citizens? My view: not only no, but hell no. Life has never given free riders a pass. There is no good reason to start now.
I feel pretty good about saying no, you’re not reading that right.
There is big, wide, cosmic gulf between “free rider” and “lives in a society wealthy enough to allow its members the freedom to find their own fulfilling ways to contribute”.
I’d also gently suggest that maybe the way you’re leaping straight from “no more hellish desperation” to “zomg, what about the rotten freeloaders” might say more about you than it does about humanity.
(This takes us back a couple of pages, but I’d say humanity has always been about taking care of each other, to the greatest extent we can. That ability to cooperate socially is kind of our thing. There are hundred thousand year old neanderthal remains showing clear evidence of a society that takes care of individuals even when they can’t contribute themselves.)
Back to this again: Grab? Hmmm. Well, now that you put it that way, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
Leaving aside the sneering condescension toward … practically everyone …
The inputs to this process include natural resources – provided by the earth, in my cosmology belonging to all of us – and the labor (of many kinds, mental and physical) of a significant number of the adults in the country.
The outputs include the products and the profits (and the pollutants, another whole related topic). The products are to some extent shared by the people whose labor was contributed as an input, and also, to some extent, by those who are unable to provide labor (children, the elderly, the chronically ill or disabled).
The profits, though, are funneled to a very small number of “captains of industry,” the sainted, irreplaceable, “job creators,” who, McKinney apparently thinks, are some supernatural kind of snowflakey being who couldn’t possibly be replaced by a significant percentage of the rest of the population.
These special people somehow “deserve” obscene wealth as a reward for their outsized “talents” (which also, let’s remember, came from…somewhere, like the deity, or the universe, or Lady Luck). But it’s kind of suspicious that there are a lot of other people – scientists come to mind, e.g., the people who actually dreamed up mRNA vaccines; or Einstein, or I dunno, Tim Berners-Lee – with outsized talents who somehow, quite suspiciously, don’t end up billionnaires, and don’t mind.
One might almost be forgiven for thinking there’s a talent for grabbiness, and that our economic system has been designed by and for people who have it.
*****
If what the billionaire is doing is legal…
What is legal … is not cast in stone. I asked McK a question about this ten years ago and he disappeared without answering. (An old trick.) But: if tax rates are determined by law, then you can’t talk about what’s “yours” (aka what you’ve grabbed, in some cases) without taking into account the taxes you’re legally obligated to pay. If you believe in the rule of law, then you can try to get the law changed, but as long as it’s in force, the amount you have to pay in taxes was never yours in the first place.
Back to this again: Grab? Hmmm. Well, now that you put it that way, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
Leaving aside the sneering condescension toward … practically everyone …
The inputs to this process include natural resources – provided by the earth, in my cosmology belonging to all of us – and the labor (of many kinds, mental and physical) of a significant number of the adults in the country.
The outputs include the products and the profits (and the pollutants, another whole related topic). The products are to some extent shared by the people whose labor was contributed as an input, and also, to some extent, by those who are unable to provide labor (children, the elderly, the chronically ill or disabled).
The profits, though, are funneled to a very small number of “captains of industry,” the sainted, irreplaceable, “job creators,” who, McKinney apparently thinks, are some supernatural kind of snowflakey being who couldn’t possibly be replaced by a significant percentage of the rest of the population.
These special people somehow “deserve” obscene wealth as a reward for their outsized “talents” (which also, let’s remember, came from…somewhere, like the deity, or the universe, or Lady Luck). But it’s kind of suspicious that there are a lot of other people – scientists come to mind, e.g., the people who actually dreamed up mRNA vaccines; or Einstein, or I dunno, Tim Berners-Lee – with outsized talents who somehow, quite suspiciously, don’t end up billionnaires, and don’t mind.
One might almost be forgiven for thinking there’s a talent for grabbiness, and that our economic system has been designed by and for people who have it.
*****
If what the billionaire is doing is legal…
What is legal … is not cast in stone. I asked McK a question about this ten years ago and he disappeared without answering. (An old trick.) But: if tax rates are determined by law, then you can’t talk about what’s “yours” (aka what you’ve grabbed, in some cases) without taking into account the taxes you’re legally obligated to pay. If you believe in the rule of law, then you can try to get the law changed, but as long as it’s in force, the amount you have to pay in taxes was never yours in the first place.
McKinney, thanks for the link, which is very interesting.
His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local [DA] roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial.
***
The Florida Safety and Justice group just poured nearly $1.4 million — all of which came from Soros and his 527 group — into a previously low-budget Democratic primary for state attorney in Central Florida before Tuesday’s vote. The group is backing Aramis Ayala, a former public defender and prosecutor, in her campaign against incumbent Jeff Ashton, whose jurisdiction covers over 1.6 million people across two counties in metro Orlando.
One TV ad from Florida Safety and Justice boosts Ayala, touting her “plan to remove bias so defendants charged with the same crime receive the same treatment, no matter their background or race.” The Soros-funded group is also attacking Ashton with ads saying he “got rid of protections that helped ensure equal treatment regardless of background or race. … Take two similar traffic incidents that happened on the same night. A white man got off with a slap on the wrist, while the black man faces prison.”
***
“I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who think prison is too nice and we need to spend more on it,” Colom continued. “But it seems like a large majority of people out there get it and realize there have to be priorities. Just because a fella commits a crime doesn’t mean the best outcome is sending them to jail. … As much as possible, I want to take people from being tax burdens to taxpayers.”
As I said upthread, where you and I cross-posted McKinney, these outrageous aims seem very different to the interventions of the Kochs, Mercers and Murdochs, to name just a few.
McKinney, thanks for the link, which is very interesting.
His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local [DA] roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial.
***
The Florida Safety and Justice group just poured nearly $1.4 million — all of which came from Soros and his 527 group — into a previously low-budget Democratic primary for state attorney in Central Florida before Tuesday’s vote. The group is backing Aramis Ayala, a former public defender and prosecutor, in her campaign against incumbent Jeff Ashton, whose jurisdiction covers over 1.6 million people across two counties in metro Orlando.
One TV ad from Florida Safety and Justice boosts Ayala, touting her “plan to remove bias so defendants charged with the same crime receive the same treatment, no matter their background or race.” The Soros-funded group is also attacking Ashton with ads saying he “got rid of protections that helped ensure equal treatment regardless of background or race. … Take two similar traffic incidents that happened on the same night. A white man got off with a slap on the wrist, while the black man faces prison.”
***
“I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who think prison is too nice and we need to spend more on it,” Colom continued. “But it seems like a large majority of people out there get it and realize there have to be priorities. Just because a fella commits a crime doesn’t mean the best outcome is sending them to jail. … As much as possible, I want to take people from being tax burdens to taxpayers.”
As I said upthread, where you and I cross-posted McKinney, these outrageous aims seem very different to the interventions of the Kochs, Mercers and Murdochs, to name just a few.
Let me note that it was the private sector that came up with vaccines, not Cuba or any of the social democracies in Europe.
The so called “Pfizer vaccine” was developed by a German company called Biontech, whose research would not exist if it hadn’t been funded by the German state.
Similarly, the so called “AstraZeneca vaccine” was developed at the University of Oxford with public funding.
And I’m sure most involved with vaccine development will have seen the inside of a university for quite a few years, which will have been fully or partially funded by the public purse.
Let me note that it was the private sector that came up with vaccines, not Cuba or any of the social democracies in Europe.
The so called “Pfizer vaccine” was developed by a German company called Biontech, whose research would not exist if it hadn’t been funded by the German state.
Similarly, the so called “AstraZeneca vaccine” was developed at the University of Oxford with public funding.
And I’m sure most involved with vaccine development will have seen the inside of a university for quite a few years, which will have been fully or partially funded by the public purse.
a couple of questions:
is ‘free market’ the same as ‘efficient market’? for the latter, at least, there are fairly clear definitions. ‘free market’ mostly gets used as an antonym for ‘command economy’. I’m not hearing anybody here argue for a command economy. I also doubt there are many here – left or right – who would argue against the public sector establishing the conditions for an efficient market.
would anyone object to Amazon being disassembled? i.e., split the online retail business from the web services business, and separate both from Whole Foods and maybe some of the other 100+ companies Amazon owns.
similar question for Facebook, who currently are Facebook, but also Instagram and WhatsApp and a couple dozen other companies.
similar question for Google, who currently are Google, but also Adsense and Google Maps and Chrome and YouTube and a couple dozen other companies.
how does that kind of concentration of ownership and domination of a given market(s) fit with the idea of a ‘free market’? or with the idea of an ‘efficient market’?
Soros is suspect since he has partnered with Charles Koch to create and fund a think tank…
When it comes to spending obscene amounts of money on boats, Bezos is greatly outclassed by the federal government…
a couple of questions:
is ‘free market’ the same as ‘efficient market’? for the latter, at least, there are fairly clear definitions. ‘free market’ mostly gets used as an antonym for ‘command economy’. I’m not hearing anybody here argue for a command economy. I also doubt there are many here – left or right – who would argue against the public sector establishing the conditions for an efficient market.
would anyone object to Amazon being disassembled? i.e., split the online retail business from the web services business, and separate both from Whole Foods and maybe some of the other 100+ companies Amazon owns.
similar question for Facebook, who currently are Facebook, but also Instagram and WhatsApp and a couple dozen other companies.
similar question for Google, who currently are Google, but also Adsense and Google Maps and Chrome and YouTube and a couple dozen other companies.
how does that kind of concentration of ownership and domination of a given market(s) fit with the idea of a ‘free market’? or with the idea of an ‘efficient market’?
Soros is suspect since he has partnered with Charles Koch to create and fund a think tank…
When it comes to spending obscene amounts of money on boats, Bezos is greatly outclassed by the federal government…
There is big, wide, cosmic gulf between “free rider” and “lives in a society wealthy enough to allow its members the freedom to find their own fulfilling ways to contribute”.
And if that uniquely fulfilling way to contribute is spending the day getting high and eating mac & cheese, society pays?
but I’d say humanity has always been about taking care of each other, to the greatest extent we can. That ability to cooperate socially is kind of our thing. There are hundred thousand year old neanderthal remains showing clear evidence of a society that takes care of individuals even when they can’t contribute themselves.
I’d say that would be the history of the “Land That Wasn’t and Never Will Be”. Tribal/communal living works, sort of, in Neolithic conditions, and we know this from the archeological record. I do not consider Neolithic lifestyle to be optimal.
And, yes, there is one example of a disfigured/bone-diseased or damaged Neanderthal male, but there are more examples of Neanderthal cannibalism as well as inbreeding. Neanderthal’s outcome is not a strong argument for the communal lifestyle (ok, I fully get that that tribalism was not the reason Neanderthal died out).
More complex societies require a hierarchy of some kind, division of labor and so on. From there, all kinds of societies have grown up and died over the millennia. Very few (actually, I suspect ‘none’ is closer to right) had universal income, or something like that, as a constituent element of of the societal ethic.
There is big, wide, cosmic gulf between “free rider” and “lives in a society wealthy enough to allow its members the freedom to find their own fulfilling ways to contribute”.
And if that uniquely fulfilling way to contribute is spending the day getting high and eating mac & cheese, society pays?
but I’d say humanity has always been about taking care of each other, to the greatest extent we can. That ability to cooperate socially is kind of our thing. There are hundred thousand year old neanderthal remains showing clear evidence of a society that takes care of individuals even when they can’t contribute themselves.
I’d say that would be the history of the “Land That Wasn’t and Never Will Be”. Tribal/communal living works, sort of, in Neolithic conditions, and we know this from the archeological record. I do not consider Neolithic lifestyle to be optimal.
And, yes, there is one example of a disfigured/bone-diseased or damaged Neanderthal male, but there are more examples of Neanderthal cannibalism as well as inbreeding. Neanderthal’s outcome is not a strong argument for the communal lifestyle (ok, I fully get that that tribalism was not the reason Neanderthal died out).
More complex societies require a hierarchy of some kind, division of labor and so on. From there, all kinds of societies have grown up and died over the millennia. Very few (actually, I suspect ‘none’ is closer to right) had universal income, or something like that, as a constituent element of of the societal ethic.
If what the billionaire is doing is legal and you are treating that person differently simply because of his/her wealth, yes that is unjustified, immoral and no it is not “just society.”
do you think that people are not treated differently based on how much money they have?
Life has never given free riders a pass.
First, there are a crap-ton of free riders who get a pass, each and every day. They don’t tend to be poor.
There is also a lot of daylight between paying ‘free riders’ to sit around and do nothing, and giving some relief to people whose jobs suck and who don’t get paid enough to live on.
There are major employers in this country whose business model is predicated on paying people the lowest wage they can get away with. If some minimal level of public support gives those people an option – a lever to use against exploitative employers – I have no objection.
I’m sure there are people who, given the choice, are just gonna stay home. I’m happy to call that a rounding error and move on.
If we’re gonna talk about societies we don’t want to live in, a society based on the principle of ‘root hog or die’ is one I don’t want to live in.
If what the billionaire is doing is legal and you are treating that person differently simply because of his/her wealth, yes that is unjustified, immoral and no it is not “just society.”
do you think that people are not treated differently based on how much money they have?
Life has never given free riders a pass.
First, there are a crap-ton of free riders who get a pass, each and every day. They don’t tend to be poor.
There is also a lot of daylight between paying ‘free riders’ to sit around and do nothing, and giving some relief to people whose jobs suck and who don’t get paid enough to live on.
There are major employers in this country whose business model is predicated on paying people the lowest wage they can get away with. If some minimal level of public support gives those people an option – a lever to use against exploitative employers – I have no objection.
I’m sure there are people who, given the choice, are just gonna stay home. I’m happy to call that a rounding error and move on.
If we’re gonna talk about societies we don’t want to live in, a society based on the principle of ‘root hog or die’ is one I don’t want to live in.
If we’re gonna talk about societies we don’t want to live in, a society based on the principle of ‘root hog or die’ is one I don’t want to live in.
When are you emigrating? 😉
If we’re gonna talk about societies we don’t want to live in, a society based on the principle of ‘root hog or die’ is one I don’t want to live in.
When are you emigrating? 😉
If what the billionaire is doing is legal and you are treating that person differently simply because of his/her wealth, yes that is unjustified, immoral and no it is not “just society.” It may be the world you’d like to see, but it is the opposite of my world.
You’ve got all kinds of things mashed up here.
First, there’s our friend excluded middle popping in again. “It’s legal therefore you can’t criticize me for it” is a non-starter. We can’t and shouldn’t make everything that’s rude or antisocial or nasty illegal. It’d be clutzy and draconian. Which means there is, and will always be, a whole spectrum of stuff that’s entirely “legal” but not “good”. Like buying up all the steaks at the supermarket. Or leaving a nasty note instead of a tip at a restaurant. Or laying off half your company two weeks before Christmas. Or buying a stupidly ginormous yacht. Or taking the writings of Ayn Rand seriously.
We can and should criticize the hell out of that shit, and make it real clear that you shouldn’t do it willy nilly just because it’s technically not prohibited by law.
Second, that “treating people differently because of their wealth” thing is a pretty weird construction. You’re sort of writing that like being wealthy is like race or gender, and its wrong to treat people differently because of it.
But a) it’s not at all like those things. Progressive income taxes, for example, fall more heavily on the rich, discriminate against them, if you like. And yet that is, in my and I think most people’s book, absolutely moral. And b) hypothetically prohibiting (or criticizing, or taxing) the purchase of 300 meter yachts discriminates against the rich and the poor completely equally as far as I can tell.
I say it’s “just society” because this kind of thing — having and enforcing opinions about what other people what they should and shouldn’t do — is what society does all the time. It’s foundational to the whole concept of living together. Clearly we can and do disagree about exactly what society we want to see, but the basic idea that society itself exists and sets those rules isn’t debatable.
If what the billionaire is doing is legal and you are treating that person differently simply because of his/her wealth, yes that is unjustified, immoral and no it is not “just society.” It may be the world you’d like to see, but it is the opposite of my world.
You’ve got all kinds of things mashed up here.
First, there’s our friend excluded middle popping in again. “It’s legal therefore you can’t criticize me for it” is a non-starter. We can’t and shouldn’t make everything that’s rude or antisocial or nasty illegal. It’d be clutzy and draconian. Which means there is, and will always be, a whole spectrum of stuff that’s entirely “legal” but not “good”. Like buying up all the steaks at the supermarket. Or leaving a nasty note instead of a tip at a restaurant. Or laying off half your company two weeks before Christmas. Or buying a stupidly ginormous yacht. Or taking the writings of Ayn Rand seriously.
We can and should criticize the hell out of that shit, and make it real clear that you shouldn’t do it willy nilly just because it’s technically not prohibited by law.
Second, that “treating people differently because of their wealth” thing is a pretty weird construction. You’re sort of writing that like being wealthy is like race or gender, and its wrong to treat people differently because of it.
But a) it’s not at all like those things. Progressive income taxes, for example, fall more heavily on the rich, discriminate against them, if you like. And yet that is, in my and I think most people’s book, absolutely moral. And b) hypothetically prohibiting (or criticizing, or taxing) the purchase of 300 meter yachts discriminates against the rich and the poor completely equally as far as I can tell.
I say it’s “just society” because this kind of thing — having and enforcing opinions about what other people what they should and shouldn’t do — is what society does all the time. It’s foundational to the whole concept of living together. Clearly we can and do disagree about exactly what society we want to see, but the basic idea that society itself exists and sets those rules isn’t debatable.
I’m sure there are people who, given the choice, are just gonna stay home. I’m happy to call that a rounding error and move on.
As usual, thank you. Or: wrs. (I am also grateful to jack lecou for a reminder about the excluded middle, along with every other jack comment on this thread.)
I’m sure there are people who, given the choice, are just gonna stay home. I’m happy to call that a rounding error and move on.
As usual, thank you. Or: wrs. (I am also grateful to jack lecou for a reminder about the excluded middle, along with every other jack comment on this thread.)
The so called “Pfizer vaccine” was developed by a German company called Biontech, whose research would not exist if it hadn’t been funded by the German state.
Ok, but if Pfizer hadn’t *been there*, all the German or US dollars in the world weren’t going to conjure up a vaccine out of thin air. That is the point: the private economy has the wherewithal to get stuff like a vaccine done. State-controlled economies don’t get anything done–or much of anything.
I asked McK a question about this ten years ago and he disappeared without answering. (An old trick.) But: if tax rates are determined by law, then you can’t talk about what’s “yours” (aka what you’ve grabbed, in some cases) without taking into account the taxes you’re legally obligated to pay. If you believe in the rule of law, then you can try to get the law changed, but as long as it’s in force, the amount you have to pay in taxes was never yours in the first place.
I can’t respond to everyone, every time. However, I will respond to the statement above: I agree, up to a point. I would take out the “in the first place”, because, ‘in the first place’ you don’t know until the end of the year what your off-setting deductions will be and to the extent you have offsetting deductions, that money remains yours. But, that’s a technical point. As a practical matter, I mentally adjust everything I make by multiplying by .6 and considering the product to be *mine*. I wind up over-withheld, which is the plan.
is ‘free market’ the same as ‘efficient market’?
No. A free market has, by definition, inefficiencies. Business fail all the time.
would anyone object to Amazon being disassembled? i.e., split the online retail business from the web services business, and separate both from Whole Foods and maybe some of the other 100+ companies Amazon owns.
In principle and at first blush, I would object. We have anti-trust laws and whatnot and per se size-limits are problematic IMO. That said, I can imagine–at science fiction levels of imagination– a conglomerate so massive, so out-sized and so domineering that it could be, in effect, *the* market with all matters of commerce subordinate to it. Basically, a private sector dictatorship as opposed to a governmental dictatorship.
So far, we haven’t seen that happen in real life. Governments, yes. A world in which everything is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon, Google & Microsoft LLC? I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
The so called “Pfizer vaccine” was developed by a German company called Biontech, whose research would not exist if it hadn’t been funded by the German state.
Ok, but if Pfizer hadn’t *been there*, all the German or US dollars in the world weren’t going to conjure up a vaccine out of thin air. That is the point: the private economy has the wherewithal to get stuff like a vaccine done. State-controlled economies don’t get anything done–or much of anything.
I asked McK a question about this ten years ago and he disappeared without answering. (An old trick.) But: if tax rates are determined by law, then you can’t talk about what’s “yours” (aka what you’ve grabbed, in some cases) without taking into account the taxes you’re legally obligated to pay. If you believe in the rule of law, then you can try to get the law changed, but as long as it’s in force, the amount you have to pay in taxes was never yours in the first place.
I can’t respond to everyone, every time. However, I will respond to the statement above: I agree, up to a point. I would take out the “in the first place”, because, ‘in the first place’ you don’t know until the end of the year what your off-setting deductions will be and to the extent you have offsetting deductions, that money remains yours. But, that’s a technical point. As a practical matter, I mentally adjust everything I make by multiplying by .6 and considering the product to be *mine*. I wind up over-withheld, which is the plan.
is ‘free market’ the same as ‘efficient market’?
No. A free market has, by definition, inefficiencies. Business fail all the time.
would anyone object to Amazon being disassembled? i.e., split the online retail business from the web services business, and separate both from Whole Foods and maybe some of the other 100+ companies Amazon owns.
In principle and at first blush, I would object. We have anti-trust laws and whatnot and per se size-limits are problematic IMO. That said, I can imagine–at science fiction levels of imagination– a conglomerate so massive, so out-sized and so domineering that it could be, in effect, *the* market with all matters of commerce subordinate to it. Basically, a private sector dictatorship as opposed to a governmental dictatorship.
So far, we haven’t seen that happen in real life. Governments, yes. A world in which everything is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon, Google & Microsoft LLC? I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
hypothetically prohibiting (or criticizing, or taxing) the purchase of 300 meter yachts discriminates against the rich and the poor completely equally as far as I can tell.
And discrimination is good? If a gov’t can prohibit the purchase of yachts, then why not condoms? Or tomatoes? Or Korans? Screwing with people because you don’t care for their otherwise lawful conduct or their wealth or whatever is, in the final analysis, mob rule. If the mob doesn’t like non-Catholics, then it’s Inquisition time.
You assume that society acts reasonably, rationally and in its members’ best interests. I have a crap ton of historical examples that will prove otherwise.
hypothetically prohibiting (or criticizing, or taxing) the purchase of 300 meter yachts discriminates against the rich and the poor completely equally as far as I can tell.
And discrimination is good? If a gov’t can prohibit the purchase of yachts, then why not condoms? Or tomatoes? Or Korans? Screwing with people because you don’t care for their otherwise lawful conduct or their wealth or whatever is, in the final analysis, mob rule. If the mob doesn’t like non-Catholics, then it’s Inquisition time.
You assume that society acts reasonably, rationally and in its members’ best interests. I have a crap ton of historical examples that will prove otherwise.
More complex societies require a hierarchy of some kind, division of labor and so on.
Hierarchy and division of labor are not at all the same thing.
As far as being necessary for a complex society, I think I would grant the second, but not the first.
I think this is actually something of an unjustified assumption in archaeology itself. See a complex city, assume there *must* have been a hierarchy. It’s not an unnatural assumption, but I think its rooted at least as much in the prejudices of loyal Victorian gentleman antiquarians as it is in the facts in the ground.
As we covered up thread, there are some notable examples of complex societies from the deep past without apparent evidence of hierarchy. I remain hopeful that we might come up with something like that in the future.
More complex societies require a hierarchy of some kind, division of labor and so on.
Hierarchy and division of labor are not at all the same thing.
As far as being necessary for a complex society, I think I would grant the second, but not the first.
I think this is actually something of an unjustified assumption in archaeology itself. See a complex city, assume there *must* have been a hierarchy. It’s not an unnatural assumption, but I think its rooted at least as much in the prejudices of loyal Victorian gentleman antiquarians as it is in the facts in the ground.
As we covered up thread, there are some notable examples of complex societies from the deep past without apparent evidence of hierarchy. I remain hopeful that we might come up with something like that in the future.
Or taking the writings of Ayn Rand seriously.
To add to the jack lecou thanks, this made me laugh.
And so to bed. Good night, all.
Or taking the writings of Ayn Rand seriously.
To add to the jack lecou thanks, this made me laugh.
And so to bed. Good night, all.
p.s. What is this crap ton of which so many of you speak? It sounds most unpleasant.
p.s. What is this crap ton of which so many of you speak? It sounds most unpleasant.
As we covered up thread, there are some notable examples of complex societies from the deep past without apparent evidence of hierarchy. I remain hopeful that we might come up with something like that in the future.
And I read that with interest, although I think “complex” is doing a lot of lifting if we are talking about the same thing: pre-Indo-European widespread agricultural/pastoral semi-nirvana vs chariots and pyramids and whatnot? The pre-Indo-Europeans were not complex in their physical leavings, unlike their conquerors. I kind of lean toward a time (in Europe anyway) of pre-Indo European peace and quiet. The cave painters in Spain/France seem to have been stable for something like 3000 years, painting away for their own mysterious reasons, yet doing so in a way that will capture imaginations for eons to come. I can’t envision that kind of stability with warfare being any meaningful part of how people lived.
The problem with the lion laying down with the lamb lifestyle is that not every lion gets the memo and then its lamb stew until all the lambs are dead.
As we covered up thread, there are some notable examples of complex societies from the deep past without apparent evidence of hierarchy. I remain hopeful that we might come up with something like that in the future.
And I read that with interest, although I think “complex” is doing a lot of lifting if we are talking about the same thing: pre-Indo-European widespread agricultural/pastoral semi-nirvana vs chariots and pyramids and whatnot? The pre-Indo-Europeans were not complex in their physical leavings, unlike their conquerors. I kind of lean toward a time (in Europe anyway) of pre-Indo European peace and quiet. The cave painters in Spain/France seem to have been stable for something like 3000 years, painting away for their own mysterious reasons, yet doing so in a way that will capture imaginations for eons to come. I can’t envision that kind of stability with warfare being any meaningful part of how people lived.
The problem with the lion laying down with the lamb lifestyle is that not every lion gets the memo and then its lamb stew until all the lambs are dead.
And discrimination is good?
No. There’s no discrimination in banning yachts, is the point.
If a gov’t can prohibit the purchase of yachts, then why not condoms? Or tomatoes?
Or red currants. Or high explosives. Or incandescent light bulbs. Or marijuana. Or thorium-infused “ion therapy” wrist bands. Or…
What the heck is your point? Governments can absolutely prohibit the production or purchase of things. They do it all the time. Sometimes it’s a good idea, sometimes it’s not. But it’s absolutely indisputably a thing.
Or Korans? Screwing with people because you don’t care for their otherwise lawful conduct or their wealth or whatever is, in the final analysis, mob rule. If the mob doesn’t like non-Catholics, then it’s Inquisition time.
So yachts are religious articles now? Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?
You assume that society acts reasonably, rationally and in its members’ best interests. I have a crap ton of historical examples that will prove otherwise.
No I do not assume that. Some stuff societies do is pretty awful and stupid.
Nevertheless, a society does have the right and responsibility to regulate the behavior and responsibilities of its members. It’s kind of the whole idea of having one.
And discrimination is good?
No. There’s no discrimination in banning yachts, is the point.
If a gov’t can prohibit the purchase of yachts, then why not condoms? Or tomatoes?
Or red currants. Or high explosives. Or incandescent light bulbs. Or marijuana. Or thorium-infused “ion therapy” wrist bands. Or…
What the heck is your point? Governments can absolutely prohibit the production or purchase of things. They do it all the time. Sometimes it’s a good idea, sometimes it’s not. But it’s absolutely indisputably a thing.
Or Korans? Screwing with people because you don’t care for their otherwise lawful conduct or their wealth or whatever is, in the final analysis, mob rule. If the mob doesn’t like non-Catholics, then it’s Inquisition time.
So yachts are religious articles now? Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?
You assume that society acts reasonably, rationally and in its members’ best interests. I have a crap ton of historical examples that will prove otherwise.
No I do not assume that. Some stuff societies do is pretty awful and stupid.
Nevertheless, a society does have the right and responsibility to regulate the behavior and responsibilities of its members. It’s kind of the whole idea of having one.
GFTNC–I’m out too. It’s been fun but I’ve got to return to my own fulfilling way of making things fulfilling. Adios.
GFTNC–I’m out too. It’s been fun but I’ve got to return to my own fulfilling way of making things fulfilling. Adios.
Ok, but if Pfizer hadn’t *been there*, all the German or US dollars in the world weren’t going to conjure up a vaccine out of thin air. That is the point: the private economy has the wherewithal to get stuff like a vaccine done. State-controlled economies don’t get anything done–or much of anything.
This seems, absent a more nuanced explication, to misunderstand (or misconceive in a massively understated way) the role of public/private research partnerships and governmental grants in bioscience. The private economy that you imagine leading the way here could not exist without the contributions of the public institutions with which they collaborate.
I say this as someone who has worked a job paid for by grant money whose entire job was to go to all the various public and private research partners on particular grants to get all of the necessary signatures. And one of my HS friend’s entire job is finding ways to develop his university’s research IP through public/private partnerships.
Not a single pharmaceutical company could sustain itself as a private entity absent governmental investment in both research and in education.
Pfizer was *almost there* because a bunch of scientists and politicians all agreed that we needed to prepare for another SARS emergency and made sure that the research was supported and prioritized.
Ok, but if Pfizer hadn’t *been there*, all the German or US dollars in the world weren’t going to conjure up a vaccine out of thin air. That is the point: the private economy has the wherewithal to get stuff like a vaccine done. State-controlled economies don’t get anything done–or much of anything.
This seems, absent a more nuanced explication, to misunderstand (or misconceive in a massively understated way) the role of public/private research partnerships and governmental grants in bioscience. The private economy that you imagine leading the way here could not exist without the contributions of the public institutions with which they collaborate.
I say this as someone who has worked a job paid for by grant money whose entire job was to go to all the various public and private research partners on particular grants to get all of the necessary signatures. And one of my HS friend’s entire job is finding ways to develop his university’s research IP through public/private partnerships.
Not a single pharmaceutical company could sustain itself as a private entity absent governmental investment in both research and in education.
Pfizer was *almost there* because a bunch of scientists and politicians all agreed that we needed to prepare for another SARS emergency and made sure that the research was supported and prioritized.
And discrimination is good?
Also, in general, discrimination is actually good. Or at least neutral. Discrimination literally just means “telling things apart”. When they’re actually different — and the differences matter — it’s a perfectly appropriate thing to do.
Discriminating against an unqualified job applicant in favor of a qualified one, for example, is perfectly fine and just and lawful.
Discriminating against a jerk-o in your circle of friends who never pays his share of the dinner bill is fine and just and lawful.
Etc.
It’s not discrimination that’s bad. It’s unjustified prejudice.
And when I say that Jeff Bezos is bad for busting unions and buying a giant yacht, I’m not prejudging him. I’m just plain judging him. For his, you know, actual actions.
(I am also grateful to jack lecou for a reminder about the excluded middle, along with every other jack comment on this thread.)
To add to the jack lecou thanks, this made me laugh.
[blush]
And discrimination is good?
Also, in general, discrimination is actually good. Or at least neutral. Discrimination literally just means “telling things apart”. When they’re actually different — and the differences matter — it’s a perfectly appropriate thing to do.
Discriminating against an unqualified job applicant in favor of a qualified one, for example, is perfectly fine and just and lawful.
Discriminating against a jerk-o in your circle of friends who never pays his share of the dinner bill is fine and just and lawful.
Etc.
It’s not discrimination that’s bad. It’s unjustified prejudice.
And when I say that Jeff Bezos is bad for busting unions and buying a giant yacht, I’m not prejudging him. I’m just plain judging him. For his, you know, actual actions.
(I am also grateful to jack lecou for a reminder about the excluded middle, along with every other jack comment on this thread.)
To add to the jack lecou thanks, this made me laugh.
[blush]
p.s. What is this crap ton of which so many of you speak? It sounds most unpleasant.
It’s shit ton’s younger sibling.
p.s. What is this crap ton of which so many of you speak? It sounds most unpleasant.
It’s shit ton’s younger sibling.
I can’t envision that kind of stability with warfare being any meaningful part of how people lived.
The problem with the lion laying down with the lamb lifestyle is that not every lion gets the memo and then its lamb stew until all the lambs are dead.
Yes, that’s the problem isn’t it? The instability and erosion of trust that happens when a few sociopaths ignore the social contract and start taking advantage grabbing everything that’s not nailed down, or not made explicitly illegal.
Bronze age warfare. Supermarket meat raids. Private equity takeovers.
All stuff that’s fleetingly beneficial to certain members of the hierarchy (on the winning side, anyway), which is why it happens, but an even bigger long-term net negative for everyone else.
Of course, we’re not lions and lambs, are we? We’re all one species. The “lions” here are actually cannibals. Maybe what we need to do is figure out what’s wrong with the cannibalistic lambs and fix them. Or at least stop putting them at the top of our hierarchies.
I can’t envision that kind of stability with warfare being any meaningful part of how people lived.
The problem with the lion laying down with the lamb lifestyle is that not every lion gets the memo and then its lamb stew until all the lambs are dead.
Yes, that’s the problem isn’t it? The instability and erosion of trust that happens when a few sociopaths ignore the social contract and start taking advantage grabbing everything that’s not nailed down, or not made explicitly illegal.
Bronze age warfare. Supermarket meat raids. Private equity takeovers.
All stuff that’s fleetingly beneficial to certain members of the hierarchy (on the winning side, anyway), which is why it happens, but an even bigger long-term net negative for everyone else.
Of course, we’re not lions and lambs, are we? We’re all one species. The “lions” here are actually cannibals. Maybe what we need to do is figure out what’s wrong with the cannibalistic lambs and fix them. Or at least stop putting them at the top of our hierarchies.
there are a lot of other people – scientists come to mind, e.g., the people who actually dreamed up mRNA vaccines; or Einstein, or I dunno, Tim Berners-Lee – with outsized talents who somehow, quite suspiciously, don’t end up billionnaires, and don’t mind.
I have a sense that, in order to become a billionaire, you have to have a burning desire to become one. (Or, I suppose, be particularly lucky and have parents who were.) If you have other interests, pretty much any other interests beyond becoming ultra rich, you simply won’t. You may start a company, and create thousands of jobs, but if you were in it for anything but raw money-making, you didn’t get that rich.
there are a lot of other people – scientists come to mind, e.g., the people who actually dreamed up mRNA vaccines; or Einstein, or I dunno, Tim Berners-Lee – with outsized talents who somehow, quite suspiciously, don’t end up billionnaires, and don’t mind.
I have a sense that, in order to become a billionaire, you have to have a burning desire to become one. (Or, I suppose, be particularly lucky and have parents who were.) If you have other interests, pretty much any other interests beyond becoming ultra rich, you simply won’t. You may start a company, and create thousands of jobs, but if you were in it for anything but raw money-making, you didn’t get that rich.
pre-Indo-European widespread agricultural/pastoral semi-nirvana vs chariots and pyramids and whatnot? The pre-Indo-Europeans were not complex in their physical leavings, unlike their conquerors.
always good to keep up with the research
Mentioned earlier at ObWi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Amazonian basin
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/its-now-clear-that-ancient-humans-helped-enrich-the-amazon/518439/
Central America
https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/teotihuacn-the-ancient-city-upending-archaeologists-assumptions-about-wealth-inequality.html
Golden age of Chinese archaeology
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/11/chinese-archaeology-egyptian-bias-sanxingdui/
Egalitarianism in the Last Glacial Age
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/62/2014/03/Schultziner_etal_2010_Biol_Philos.pdf
There’s some interesting discussion about Neolithic egalitarianism revolving around a comparison between the remains found and their assumed distribution in the population. Of course, if you think Western Civilization started in August 1945, you may miss the subtleties of the conversation.
pre-Indo-European widespread agricultural/pastoral semi-nirvana vs chariots and pyramids and whatnot? The pre-Indo-Europeans were not complex in their physical leavings, unlike their conquerors.
always good to keep up with the research
Mentioned earlier at ObWi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Amazonian basin
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/its-now-clear-that-ancient-humans-helped-enrich-the-amazon/518439/
Central America
https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/teotihuacn-the-ancient-city-upending-archaeologists-assumptions-about-wealth-inequality.html
Golden age of Chinese archaeology
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/11/chinese-archaeology-egyptian-bias-sanxingdui/
Egalitarianism in the Last Glacial Age
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/62/2014/03/Schultziner_etal_2010_Biol_Philos.pdf
There’s some interesting discussion about Neolithic egalitarianism revolving around a comparison between the remains found and their assumed distribution in the population. Of course, if you think Western Civilization started in August 1945, you may miss the subtleties of the conversation.
Stepping back a bit and considering that humanity now has the collective ability to ensure that everyone on the planet has sufficient nutrition, but that millions upon millions are still starving, one must conclude that there is a problem with the system of global resource distribution. This problem exists even within the richest nation on earth, though to a lesser degree. But it also happens in starker contrast, considering the wealth possessed. I don’t think this outcome can possibly be morally right. What do we do about it? I have to think something other than letting the free market work it out, which is just a fancy way of saying “nothing.”
Goodnight, friends.
Stepping back a bit and considering that humanity now has the collective ability to ensure that everyone on the planet has sufficient nutrition, but that millions upon millions are still starving, one must conclude that there is a problem with the system of global resource distribution. This problem exists even within the richest nation on earth, though to a lesser degree. But it also happens in starker contrast, considering the wealth possessed. I don’t think this outcome can possibly be morally right. What do we do about it? I have to think something other than letting the free market work it out, which is just a fancy way of saying “nothing.”
Goodnight, friends.
Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
Once again back to this, and setting aside the implied sneer…
The other implication is that the people who run the production systems for some mysterious reason deserve to amass millions of times the wealth not of the poorest among us — division by zero is undefined — but of ordinary people.
Who sez? It’s apparently an obvious law of the universe to McK, but I don’t remember any stone tablets laying down that law.
It’s the excluded middle again (or the excluded kaleidoscope of possibilities): “right-thinking and good” people (don’t forget the sneer) can’t possibly be smart enough to run a factory or a farm. And no one with the right skillset to run such operations can possibly be . . . right-thinking or good?
McK does love him some post hoc reasoning.
Let’s put the right-thinking, good people in charge and let them direct the rest of us in how to produce the food, goods and services its takes to feed, cloth and house 330 million people.
Once again back to this, and setting aside the implied sneer…
The other implication is that the people who run the production systems for some mysterious reason deserve to amass millions of times the wealth not of the poorest among us — division by zero is undefined — but of ordinary people.
Who sez? It’s apparently an obvious law of the universe to McK, but I don’t remember any stone tablets laying down that law.
It’s the excluded middle again (or the excluded kaleidoscope of possibilities): “right-thinking and good” people (don’t forget the sneer) can’t possibly be smart enough to run a factory or a farm. And no one with the right skillset to run such operations can possibly be . . . right-thinking or good?
McK does love him some post hoc reasoning.
McK’s out, but I’ll ask nonetheless.
State-controlled economies don’t get anything done–or much of anything.
How do you explain China?
No. A free market has, by definition, inefficiencies. Business fail all the time.
I don’t think a business failing is incompatible with an efficient market. Not everyone is a good businessperson, in an efficient market inept businesspeople will fail.
I’m just trying to understand what people mean when they say ‘free market’. It’s right at the top of the list of right-wing buzzwords, so we’re obliged to discuss it. That being so, some clarity about what we’re talking about would be helpful.
Mostly it appears to mean ‘not a command economy’, and sometimes but not always it means ‘minimal state intervention in the economy except where it helps’. I’m not sure anyone is arguing for a command economy, so ‘where it helps’ seems to be the issue in question.
Maybe jack would argue for no big boats, maybe bobbyp would argue for no rich people at all. Most of us are just looking for some basic fairness.
A guy spending half a billion bucks on a yacht-and-a-half while paying people less than a living wage to work in unsafe and often dangerous conditions falls short of basic fairness.
You can be a billionaire and not be a dick. Bezos fails to meet that standard. Some extremely wealthy people really are greedy pathological jerks. They’re worth calling out.
McK’s out, but I’ll ask nonetheless.
State-controlled economies don’t get anything done–or much of anything.
How do you explain China?
No. A free market has, by definition, inefficiencies. Business fail all the time.
I don’t think a business failing is incompatible with an efficient market. Not everyone is a good businessperson, in an efficient market inept businesspeople will fail.
I’m just trying to understand what people mean when they say ‘free market’. It’s right at the top of the list of right-wing buzzwords, so we’re obliged to discuss it. That being so, some clarity about what we’re talking about would be helpful.
Mostly it appears to mean ‘not a command economy’, and sometimes but not always it means ‘minimal state intervention in the economy except where it helps’. I’m not sure anyone is arguing for a command economy, so ‘where it helps’ seems to be the issue in question.
Maybe jack would argue for no big boats, maybe bobbyp would argue for no rich people at all. Most of us are just looking for some basic fairness.
A guy spending half a billion bucks on a yacht-and-a-half while paying people less than a living wage to work in unsafe and often dangerous conditions falls short of basic fairness.
You can be a billionaire and not be a dick. Bezos fails to meet that standard. Some extremely wealthy people really are greedy pathological jerks. They’re worth calling out.
Who sez? It’s apparently an obvious law of the universe to McK, but I don’t remember any stone tablets laying down that law.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick. The Soviet Union tried and just ended up with different people in the distribution.
Who sez? It’s apparently an obvious law of the universe to McK, but I don’t remember any stone tablets laying down that law.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick. The Soviet Union tried and just ended up with different people in the distribution.
The average entry level pay at Amazon is15 hr. Does this make you question your basic premise? Sorry for brevity. IPad and late.
The average entry level pay at Amazon is15 hr. Does this make you question your basic premise? Sorry for brevity. IPad and late.
Does this make you question your basic premise?
Oh, the zingers, they burn.
*****
15*40 = 600/week
Where in this country can you have a minimally decent life on $600 a week? Even by yourself, never mind if you have a family.
And if that’s “average,” then some people make less. It’s also gross pay, so social security would be taken out, at the very least.
Food, rent, the cheapest possible phone plus other utilities, a junk car or public T, health care costs (even if you have company-paid insurance, there will be some), clothing from the Goodwill, a computer and internet access so your kid can go to school via Zoom during a pandemic?
These people don’t know how good they have it.
Does this make you question your basic premise?
Oh, the zingers, they burn.
*****
15*40 = 600/week
Where in this country can you have a minimally decent life on $600 a week? Even by yourself, never mind if you have a family.
And if that’s “average,” then some people make less. It’s also gross pay, so social security would be taken out, at the very least.
Food, rent, the cheapest possible phone plus other utilities, a junk car or public T, health care costs (even if you have company-paid insurance, there will be some), clothing from the Goodwill, a computer and internet access so your kid can go to school via Zoom during a pandemic?
These people don’t know how good they have it.
On the zinger front: I guess we’re supposed to marvel at how dumb we were not to realize how lavish a life you can live on $15/hour.
On the zinger front: I guess we’re supposed to marvel at how dumb we were not to realize how lavish a life you can live on $15/hour.
Amazon workers were not complaining about pay. They were complaining about horrible working conditions such that they have 109% turnover rates and extremely high rates of injury compared to other warehouse jobs. That much turnover when the pay is better than other warehouse jobs points to a deep problem.
As for them voting against unionizing, it’s really hard to get any sort of organizing done when such a huge percentage of the workforce is turning over. And that’s not even getting into the scare tactics that it used to intimidate workers ahead of the vote or the ways that they tried to undermine the anonymity of the vote.
Amazon workers were not complaining about pay. They were complaining about horrible working conditions such that they have 109% turnover rates and extremely high rates of injury compared to other warehouse jobs. That much turnover when the pay is better than other warehouse jobs points to a deep problem.
As for them voting against unionizing, it’s really hard to get any sort of organizing done when such a huge percentage of the workforce is turning over. And that’s not even getting into the scare tactics that it used to intimidate workers ahead of the vote or the ways that they tried to undermine the anonymity of the vote.
How do you explain China?
The low-hanging fruit of starting from near the bottom and using, often stealing, everyone else’s IP.
China’s economic growth started almost by accident. In the rural areas, farmers secretly agreed to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas. The government didn’t stamp it out and later allowed economic zones where foreign investors could set up manufacturing plants and other businesses.
I’m just trying to understand what people mean when they say ‘free market’.
In the simplest sense, a free market is a market that had no third-party interventions in transactions. This does not preclude a rule of law to act against fraud and enforce contracts.
How do you explain China?
The low-hanging fruit of starting from near the bottom and using, often stealing, everyone else’s IP.
China’s economic growth started almost by accident. In the rural areas, farmers secretly agreed to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas. The government didn’t stamp it out and later allowed economic zones where foreign investors could set up manufacturing plants and other businesses.
I’m just trying to understand what people mean when they say ‘free market’.
In the simplest sense, a free market is a market that had no third-party interventions in transactions. This does not preclude a rule of law to act against fraud and enforce contracts.
Where in this country can you have a minimally decent life on $600 a week?
Where I am in Texas, I could be pretty comfortable on that and have money left over to put into savings. But it wouldn’t leave a lot of room for unexpected large expenses.
Where in this country can you have a minimally decent life on $600 a week?
Where I am in Texas, I could be pretty comfortable on that and have money left over to put into savings. But it wouldn’t leave a lot of room for unexpected large expenses.
CharlesWT, does that include just yourself? I.e. no kids, no partner…? (You don’t have to answer, obviously, but it obviously makes a big difference budget-wise. E.g., how much child care can you afford on $600/week? Never mind groceries, kids’ clothes…etc.)
Would your comfort on $600 a week include $ for the occasional movie? A modest vacation every few years? Birthday gifts for friends and family? (This latter was one of my mother’s obsessions in her last year of life. Toward the end, when she couldn’t remember what you said five minutes ago, or string a very coherent sentence together, she still knew the birthdays of her kids and grandkids.)
CharlesWT, does that include just yourself? I.e. no kids, no partner…? (You don’t have to answer, obviously, but it obviously makes a big difference budget-wise. E.g., how much child care can you afford on $600/week? Never mind groceries, kids’ clothes…etc.)
Would your comfort on $600 a week include $ for the occasional movie? A modest vacation every few years? Birthday gifts for friends and family? (This latter was one of my mother’s obsessions in her last year of life. Toward the end, when she couldn’t remember what you said five minutes ago, or string a very coherent sentence together, she still knew the birthdays of her kids and grandkids.)
Does this make you question your basic premise?
No.
As noted by Janie, $15 is $600/week or about $30k/year, gross. That is not actually a lot of money in most places. And Amazon warehouse work is a dangerous stultifying b*tch.
In 2020, Amazon was the fourth largest company in the world by market cap. It’s not like they can’t afford to pay people more. Or at least make their workplaces safe and mentally tolerable.
Sorry for brevity.
No worries, I appreciate the reply.
The low-hanging fruit of starting from near the bottom and using, often stealing, everyone else’s IP.
That’s pretty much where everyone starts out. It’s where we started out, including the stolen IP part.
My question was about how to explain the advances China has made in the context of a largely centrally directed economy. The claim was that that had never been done, I think China is a counter example.
Where I am in Texas, I could be pretty comfortable on that and have money left over to put into savings.
A) good for you
B) do you school age kids at home? Do you own your home, and if so when did get into the housing market?
a free market is a market that had no third-party interventions in transactions
Thank you, that is crisp, concise, and seems pretty accurate.
Does this make you question your basic premise?
No.
As noted by Janie, $15 is $600/week or about $30k/year, gross. That is not actually a lot of money in most places. And Amazon warehouse work is a dangerous stultifying b*tch.
In 2020, Amazon was the fourth largest company in the world by market cap. It’s not like they can’t afford to pay people more. Or at least make their workplaces safe and mentally tolerable.
Sorry for brevity.
No worries, I appreciate the reply.
The low-hanging fruit of starting from near the bottom and using, often stealing, everyone else’s IP.
That’s pretty much where everyone starts out. It’s where we started out, including the stolen IP part.
My question was about how to explain the advances China has made in the context of a largely centrally directed economy. The claim was that that had never been done, I think China is a counter example.
Where I am in Texas, I could be pretty comfortable on that and have money left over to put into savings.
A) good for you
B) do you school age kids at home? Do you own your home, and if so when did get into the housing market?
a free market is a market that had no third-party interventions in transactions
Thank you, that is crisp, concise, and seems pretty accurate.
CharlesWT, does that include just yourself? I.e. no kids, no partner…?
Just me.
I could be comfortable but would have to be frugal. Such as rarely eating out and eating take-out. The lease and fees for my current apartment are about $960 a month. There would be room for some discretionary spending depending on how much was going into savings.
The claim was that that had never been done, I think China is a counter example.
Some pundits use to claim that there couldn’t be economic freedom without political freedom. The Chinese people seem to have made the bargain with the government that they can do without political freedom as long as they can make money and have the hope of an improving lifestyle. This could all be out the window if the economy crashes or the housing bubble burst.
CharlesWT, does that include just yourself? I.e. no kids, no partner…?
Just me.
I could be comfortable but would have to be frugal. Such as rarely eating out and eating take-out. The lease and fees for my current apartment are about $960 a month. There would be room for some discretionary spending depending on how much was going into savings.
The claim was that that had never been done, I think China is a counter example.
Some pundits use to claim that there couldn’t be economic freedom without political freedom. The Chinese people seem to have made the bargain with the government that they can do without political freedom as long as they can make money and have the hope of an improving lifestyle. This could all be out the window if the economy crashes or the housing bubble burst.
This could all be out the window if the economy crashes or the housing bubble burst.
Also true of western democracies. Desperation is the enemy of all, and an ethical society’s main job should be to keep that as far away from most people as is sustainable. Personal agency is one of those things that keeps desperation at bay, but it is not the only thing.
This could all be out the window if the economy crashes or the housing bubble burst.
Also true of western democracies. Desperation is the enemy of all, and an ethical society’s main job should be to keep that as far away from most people as is sustainable. Personal agency is one of those things that keeps desperation at bay, but it is not the only thing.
China has very little in the way of social services and safety nets. Things could get pretty disparate pretty fast.
China has very little in the way of social services and safety nets. Things could get pretty disparate pretty fast.
desperate
Always check the spell checker…
desperate
Always check the spell checker…
Yeah, things are already disparate in China. 😉
Yeah, things are already disparate in China. 😉
Not at all so – it’s a one party state.
Not at all so – it’s a one party state.
Now this is a form of protest that I approve.
https://twitter.com/hazelreporting/status/1392886366720118785
Now this is a form of protest that I approve.
https://twitter.com/hazelreporting/status/1392886366720118785
China’s economic growth started almost by accident. In the rural areas, farmers secretly agreed to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas. The government didn’t stamp it out and later allowed economic zones where foreign investors could set up manufacturing plants and other businesses.
Sheesh, did that have Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen or Sammo Hung in it? It sounds familiar, but I just can’t place the movie…
China’s economic growth started almost by accident. In the rural areas, farmers secretly agreed to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas. The government didn’t stamp it out and later allowed economic zones where foreign investors could set up manufacturing plants and other businesses.
Sheesh, did that have Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen or Sammo Hung in it? It sounds familiar, but I just can’t place the movie…
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
This is completely false. For example:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ideology/pdf/F10.2.pdf
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
This is completely false. For example:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ideology/pdf/F10.2.pdf
For a very brief change of pace, this is Michael Sheen with a wonderful rendition of Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night in honour of Dylan Thomas Day, on the anniversary of the first production of Under Milkwood. It’s an example of how, when a poem is read in the same accent in which the poet would have thought it, there is a small but noticeable gain :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-sM-t1KI_Y
For a very brief change of pace, this is Michael Sheen with a wonderful rendition of Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night in honour of Dylan Thomas Day, on the anniversary of the first production of Under Milkwood. It’s an example of how, when a poem is read in the same accent in which the poet would have thought it, there is a small but noticeable gain :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-sM-t1KI_Y
there’s an album called “A Child’s Christmas In Males” of Dylan Thomas reading a bunch of his own poems. recorded in 1952.
you can find some of it, and other recordings of Thomas, on YouTube.
(my middle name is ‘Dylan’, from Dylan Thomas)
there’s an album called “A Child’s Christmas In Males” of Dylan Thomas reading a bunch of his own poems. recorded in 1952.
you can find some of it, and other recordings of Thomas, on YouTube.
(my middle name is ‘Dylan’, from Dylan Thomas)
an M is an upside down W.
it’s part of my secret code.
an M is an upside down W.
it’s part of my secret code.
PB: I agree with McKTx that we should abolish inherited wealth now.
McKTx: I think you know that’s not what I said. Free riders do not have the right to call on their fellow citizens for support. If their families are dumb enough to support them, that’s their own business
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
PB: I agree with McKTx that we should abolish inherited wealth now.
McKTx: I think you know that’s not what I said. Free riders do not have the right to call on their fellow citizens for support. If their families are dumb enough to support them, that’s their own business
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
Free riders do not have the right to call on their fellow citizens for support
they do if we say they do.
you can’t just pull moral decrees from the air and demand everybody obey them.
Free riders do not have the right to call on their fellow citizens for support
they do if we say they do.
you can’t just pull moral decrees from the air and demand everybody obey them.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
Yeah, this is complete nonsense.
I mean, I suppose it might be technically true in something like the same sense that “it’s difficult to make a heavier than air vehicle in the air and keep it up there” but that doesn’t mean airplanes are impossible, just that there’s some engineering to work out.
But I’m somewhat skeptical that it’s even that difficult. I’m just not sure any modern society, at least, has even tried. Taxes are usually framed as a way to raise revenue, so they aren’t structured for this purpose. Sometimes — like a couple of decades post-WWII in the US — tax rates and other factors conspired to level out income or wealth somewhat. For a time. But that’s really an accidental side effect, so it doesn’t last.
I don’t think there’s any reason to think that overcoming the tendency of wealth to concentrate, or at least making a big dent, would be any more difficult than designing a tax structure to explicitly target that goal. A 100% inheritance tax. A real wealth tax. Maybe some kind of financial transaction tax. And a proper budget for enforcement.
The biggest difficulty would likely be getting that to pass in the first place: there are a lot of already wealthy and powerful people who very much don’t want such a thing to happen.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
Yeah, this is complete nonsense.
I mean, I suppose it might be technically true in something like the same sense that “it’s difficult to make a heavier than air vehicle in the air and keep it up there” but that doesn’t mean airplanes are impossible, just that there’s some engineering to work out.
But I’m somewhat skeptical that it’s even that difficult. I’m just not sure any modern society, at least, has even tried. Taxes are usually framed as a way to raise revenue, so they aren’t structured for this purpose. Sometimes — like a couple of decades post-WWII in the US — tax rates and other factors conspired to level out income or wealth somewhat. For a time. But that’s really an accidental side effect, so it doesn’t last.
I don’t think there’s any reason to think that overcoming the tendency of wealth to concentrate, or at least making a big dent, would be any more difficult than designing a tax structure to explicitly target that goal. A 100% inheritance tax. A real wealth tax. Maybe some kind of financial transaction tax. And a proper budget for enforcement.
The biggest difficulty would likely be getting that to pass in the first place: there are a lot of already wealthy and powerful people who very much don’t want such a thing to happen.
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
Exactly.
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
Exactly.
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
what jack said.
In the good old days we made children get a real job and told old people to get it over with and just die. ‘effing idlers, the lot of them.
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
what jack said.
In the good old days we made children get a real job and told old people to get it over with and just die. ‘effing idlers, the lot of them.
China has very little in the way of social services and safety nets.
Not really true. They’ve got universal health care and paid maternity leave, so they’ve got a couple moves on the US, which doesn’t have the excuse of being a developing country.
The existing US ones were certainly inadequate to the task last year, for example. We passed emergency measures to bridge the gap (well, some of it).
China responded similarly, shoring up their safety net in the process.
I suspect they’d do something similar to respond to any future catastrophe, or at least whatever they’re able to. The party leaders very much know where their bread is buttered, and mass unemployment or similar event would be a disaster for them.
To some extent, it’s also just a different system. One with a lot more hands-on management. I think their ideal approach would be to fend off economic crisis before it occurred, rather than relying on a safety net to pick up the pieces. And for better or worse, authoritarian systems can respond very flexibly once they become aware of an incoming problem.
China has very little in the way of social services and safety nets.
Not really true. They’ve got universal health care and paid maternity leave, so they’ve got a couple moves on the US, which doesn’t have the excuse of being a developing country.
The existing US ones were certainly inadequate to the task last year, for example. We passed emergency measures to bridge the gap (well, some of it).
China responded similarly, shoring up their safety net in the process.
I suspect they’d do something similar to respond to any future catastrophe, or at least whatever they’re able to. The party leaders very much know where their bread is buttered, and mass unemployment or similar event would be a disaster for them.
To some extent, it’s also just a different system. One with a lot more hands-on management. I think their ideal approach would be to fend off economic crisis before it occurred, rather than relying on a safety net to pick up the pieces. And for better or worse, authoritarian systems can respond very flexibly once they become aware of an incoming problem.
The Working Poor — a very powerful account, and sad to say, probably more relevant today than it was when it came out in 2005.
The Working Poor — a very powerful account, and sad to say, probably more relevant today than it was when it came out in 2005.
To some extent, it’s also just a different system.
Indeed. They are attempting to deal with some really big (let me repeat-really BIG) issues.
To some extent, it’s also just a different system.
Indeed. They are attempting to deal with some really big (let me repeat-really BIG) issues.
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
Seconded. (Fourthed?)
The idle rich reminded me of Alfred Doolittle’s moral philosophy, so I opened Pygmalion for the first time in a long time. Sometimes I forget how laugh-out-loud funny Shaw can be.
To me, it makes no difference whether your idle lifestyle is supported by government or by numbers in an inherited bank account. The rest of us are still producing stuff for you while you contribute nothing.
Seconded. (Fourthed?)
The idle rich reminded me of Alfred Doolittle’s moral philosophy, so I opened Pygmalion for the first time in a long time. Sometimes I forget how laugh-out-loud funny Shaw can be.
Marvellous!
Marvellous!
It’s been fun but I’ve got to return to my own fulfilling way of making things fulfilling.
Here, probably inadvertently, we come to a big part of the challenge when discussing something like UBI. We all have a tendency to extrapolate from the people we encounter.
Maybe most of the people you know, or know of (perhaps from YouTube videos, for example FabRats or Mike Patey), devote big chunks of their free time (and even more in retirement) to building stuff. Or working in their garden. Whatever. As a result, you will tend to think some variation on “people want to work; to do something useful.”
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
It might be informative to get some solid statistics on how big each group actually is. With details so we can also see how many would prefer to be in the other — perhaps if they had access to the tools to do something in particular. Until we have that, all we can do is toss off random examples of one or the other, which doesn’t do much to enlighten anybody.
It’s been fun but I’ve got to return to my own fulfilling way of making things fulfilling.
Here, probably inadvertently, we come to a big part of the challenge when discussing something like UBI. We all have a tendency to extrapolate from the people we encounter.
Maybe most of the people you know, or know of (perhaps from YouTube videos, for example FabRats or Mike Patey), devote big chunks of their free time (and even more in retirement) to building stuff. Or working in their garden. Whatever. As a result, you will tend to think some variation on “people want to work; to do something useful.”
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
It might be informative to get some solid statistics on how big each group actually is. With details so we can also see how many would prefer to be in the other — perhaps if they had access to the tools to do something in particular. Until we have that, all we can do is toss off random examples of one or the other, which doesn’t do much to enlighten anybody.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
This is completely false. For example:
Income inequality 1900-2015: the diversity of Europe
From the chart, in Sweden in the 1980s income inequality had dropped to the point that income of the top decile was below 25%. But I don’t think anyone wants to go through what Sweden did to get there.
In 1950 Sweden was the fourth-richest country in the world. By 1995 their wealth was less than the G7 average. During the 70s and 80s, the country was almost destroyed.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
This is completely false. For example:
Income inequality 1900-2015: the diversity of Europe
From the chart, in Sweden in the 1980s income inequality had dropped to the point that income of the top decile was below 25%. But I don’t think anyone wants to go through what Sweden did to get there.
In 1950 Sweden was the fourth-richest country in the world. By 1995 their wealth was less than the G7 average. During the 70s and 80s, the country was almost destroyed.
Shades of Martin Luther!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/gay-blessings-germany-vatican/2021/05/10/e452cea2-af6a-11eb-82c1-896aca955bb9_story.html
And note that Pope Francis has already said that, 500 years ago, Luther was correct.
(Since this is as open a thread as we’ve got.)
Shades of Martin Luther!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/gay-blessings-germany-vatican/2021/05/10/e452cea2-af6a-11eb-82c1-896aca955bb9_story.html
And note that Pope Francis has already said that, 500 years ago, Luther was correct.
(Since this is as open a thread as we’ve got.)
During the 70s and 80s, the country [Sweden] was almost destroyed.
Shall we blame ABBA? Which, after all, was busy at the time becoming massively rich as one of the country’s top 3 sources of export earning.
During the 70s and 80s, the country [Sweden] was almost destroyed.
Shall we blame ABBA? Which, after all, was busy at the time becoming massively rich as one of the country’s top 3 sources of export earning.
By 1995 their wealth was less than the G7 average.
and?
it’s #7 on the Happiest Countries list.
i’d rather be happy than wealthy.
By 1995 their wealth was less than the G7 average.
and?
it’s #7 on the Happiest Countries list.
i’d rather be happy than wealthy.
During the 70s and 80s, the country was almost destroyed.
That’s rather overstating things, don’t you think?
Sweden probably made some missteps in handling the oil crisis of the mid 70s, but as usual, things are complicated.
Anyway, what you’re implying with that anecdote is that economic crisis is the *only* way to achieve economic equality. That’s clearly not in evidence.
During the 70s and 80s, the country was almost destroyed.
That’s rather overstating things, don’t you think?
Sweden probably made some missteps in handling the oil crisis of the mid 70s, but as usual, things are complicated.
Anyway, what you’re implying with that anecdote is that economic crisis is the *only* way to achieve economic equality. That’s clearly not in evidence.
From the chart, in Sweden in the 1980s income inequality had dropped to the point that income of the top decile was below 25%
From the chart, Sweden along with France, Germany and Europe and the aggregate, were well below the supposedly insurmountable Pareto limit of income inequality from the end of WW2 until 2015.
But I don’t think anyone wants to go through what Sweden did to get there.
Steady growth even relative to the rest of the word?
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/sweden-economic-growth-and-structural-change-1800-2000/pi
i’d rather be happy than wealthy.
Sweden is both. Currently their GDP per capita is only below US and (slightly) Germany among G7 nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
From the chart, in Sweden in the 1980s income inequality had dropped to the point that income of the top decile was below 25%
From the chart, Sweden along with France, Germany and Europe and the aggregate, were well below the supposedly insurmountable Pareto limit of income inequality from the end of WW2 until 2015.
But I don’t think anyone wants to go through what Sweden did to get there.
Steady growth even relative to the rest of the word?
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/sweden-economic-growth-and-structural-change-1800-2000/pi
i’d rather be happy than wealthy.
Sweden is both. Currently their GDP per capita is only below US and (slightly) Germany among G7 nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
Well, since my wife is an author, we’d call those people “job producers.”
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
Well, since my wife is an author, we’d call those people “job producers.”
Ufficio, from your link:
“Crisis and Restructuring from the 1970s
…
During the 1980s some of the constituent components of the Swedish model were weakened or eliminated. Centralized negotiations and solidaristic wage policy disappeared. Regulations in the capital market were dismantled under the pressure of increasing international capital flows simultaneously with a forceful revival of the stock market. The expansion of public sector services came to an end and the taxation system was reformed with a reduction of marginal tax rates. Thus, Swedish economic policy and welfare system became more adapted to the main European level that facilitated the Swedish application of membership and final entrance into the European Union in 1995.”
Sweden – Economic Growth and Structural Change, 1800-2000
Sweden has recuperated a lot since 1995. Currently, it’s more economically free than the US.
Ufficio, from your link:
“Crisis and Restructuring from the 1970s
…
During the 1980s some of the constituent components of the Swedish model were weakened or eliminated. Centralized negotiations and solidaristic wage policy disappeared. Regulations in the capital market were dismantled under the pressure of increasing international capital flows simultaneously with a forceful revival of the stock market. The expansion of public sector services came to an end and the taxation system was reformed with a reduction of marginal tax rates. Thus, Swedish economic policy and welfare system became more adapted to the main European level that facilitated the Swedish application of membership and final entrance into the European Union in 1995.”
Sweden – Economic Growth and Structural Change, 1800-2000
Sweden has recuperated a lot since 1995. Currently, it’s more economically free than the US.
Sweden has recuperated a lot since 1995. Currently, it’s more economically free than the US.
And yet its income distribution is still below the supposed Pareto rule.
Again, how is this serving your point? Even anecdotally?
Sweden has recuperated a lot since 1995. Currently, it’s more economically free than the US.
And yet its income distribution is still below the supposed Pareto rule.
Again, how is this serving your point? Even anecdotally?
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
Well, since my wife is an author, we’d call those people “job producers.”
Two thoughts about how much the bean-counters miss or ignore when figuring out what we all contribute to the world.
1.
First, a metaphor:
The place where I live is set on the 10-acre remnant of a 300-acre dairy farm. When I first moved here, excited at the prospect of having some land, I consulted a forester at the Soil Conservation Service office in Augusta. We talked about gardening, planting trees, having someone plant a few acres for hay (some of the land is swampy and unsuitable), and I don’t remember what else.
Finally the forester said, “Or you could just let the land sit there and hold the world together.”
2.
I seem to be in a literary mood today, so here’s another salute to the value of intangibles (doubly so, in my offering it and in its subject matter): the last paragraphs of Middlemarch:
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
Well, since my wife is an author, we’d call those people “job producers.”
Two thoughts about how much the bean-counters miss or ignore when figuring out what we all contribute to the world.
1.
First, a metaphor:
The place where I live is set on the 10-acre remnant of a 300-acre dairy farm. When I first moved here, excited at the prospect of having some land, I consulted a forester at the Soil Conservation Service office in Augusta. We talked about gardening, planting trees, having someone plant a few acres for hay (some of the land is swampy and unsuitable), and I don’t remember what else.
Finally the forester said, “Or you could just let the land sit there and hold the world together.”
2.
I seem to be in a literary mood today, so here’s another salute to the value of intangibles (doubly so, in my offering it and in its subject matter): the last paragraphs of Middlemarch:
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
I should, perhaps, have noted that I am personally one of those who spends big chunks of his free time reading. But then, I can afford to live off the income from my savings, so I presumptively avoid the “undeserving” subset of my fellow sluggards.
Then again, perhaps your social circle spends their free time reading, or playing cards, or something else unproductive. Then you can see UBI as funding undeserving sluggards.
I should, perhaps, have noted that I am personally one of those who spends big chunks of his free time reading. But then, I can afford to live off the income from my savings, so I presumptively avoid the “undeserving” subset of my fellow sluggards.
Not really true. They’ve got universal health care and paid maternity leave, so they’ve got a couple moves on the US, which doesn’t have the excuse of being a developing country.
What countries say they have and what’s available on the ground can be very different. Unless someone can afford a private hospital or pop over to Hong Kong, medical care can be very chancy even in the first-tier cities.
At public hospitals, people have to stand in long lines to get a ticket and pay upfront for treatment. Lines long enough that some pay scapers to stand in line for them. Then they may have to pay a bribe to get treated in a timely manner. In rural areas, any medical care available may only be from TCM practitioners.
Doctors and nurses are often poorly trained, poorly paid, poorly treated, and face overwhelming caseloads. They often face verbal and physical assaults from patients and their relatives. Some patients and relatives think they have been defrauded if they pay a doctor and are not cured.
Some of the recent reduction in poverty in China is due to moving the goalposts. This year the CCP declared that poverty had been completely eliminated.
Not really true. They’ve got universal health care and paid maternity leave, so they’ve got a couple moves on the US, which doesn’t have the excuse of being a developing country.
What countries say they have and what’s available on the ground can be very different. Unless someone can afford a private hospital or pop over to Hong Kong, medical care can be very chancy even in the first-tier cities.
At public hospitals, people have to stand in long lines to get a ticket and pay upfront for treatment. Lines long enough that some pay scapers to stand in line for them. Then they may have to pay a bribe to get treated in a timely manner. In rural areas, any medical care available may only be from TCM practitioners.
Doctors and nurses are often poorly trained, poorly paid, poorly treated, and face overwhelming caseloads. They often face verbal and physical assaults from patients and their relatives. Some patients and relatives think they have been defrauded if they pay a doctor and are not cured.
Some of the recent reduction in poverty in China is due to moving the goalposts. This year the CCP declared that poverty had been completely eliminated.
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
I’d also urge you to think through the implications of this invocation a little bit.
Pareto distributions apply to all sorts of things. Like the sizes of sand grains. And yet it would be the height of folly to argue that such a distribution is “just”. To suggest that some sand grains worked harder than others, say, or that some sand grains “deserved” their size. Clearly that Pareto distribution is the result of a purely stochastic process, in which chance variations in the starting conditions result in a predictably disparate range of outcomes.
What does that say about income distribution? Do you really believe invoking the Pareto principle is a good argument against attempts to make that distribution more just?
Not a law, but it’s very difficult to overcome the Pareto principle and make it stick.
I’d also urge you to think through the implications of this invocation a little bit.
Pareto distributions apply to all sorts of things. Like the sizes of sand grains. And yet it would be the height of folly to argue that such a distribution is “just”. To suggest that some sand grains worked harder than others, say, or that some sand grains “deserved” their size. Clearly that Pareto distribution is the result of a purely stochastic process, in which chance variations in the starting conditions result in a predictably disparate range of outcomes.
What does that say about income distribution? Do you really believe invoking the Pareto principle is a good argument against attempts to make that distribution more just?
What does that say about income distribution? Do you really believe invoking the Pareto principle is a good argument against attempts to make that distribution more just?
I’ve never taken an economics class, so maybe someone could explain this to me. Is it at all like saying that when rain doesn’t always fall at the time or place where we’re growing our crops, we should nevertheless not try irrigating the land, because oh well, the Great God Pareto has spoken?
If that’s the idea, we might as well pack it in and go back to hunting and gathering.
What does that say about income distribution? Do you really believe invoking the Pareto principle is a good argument against attempts to make that distribution more just?
I’ve never taken an economics class, so maybe someone could explain this to me. Is it at all like saying that when rain doesn’t always fall at the time or place where we’re growing our crops, we should nevertheless not try irrigating the land, because oh well, the Great God Pareto has spoken?
If that’s the idea, we might as well pack it in and go back to hunting and gathering.
Do you really believe invoking the Pareto principle is a good argument against attempts to make that distribution more just?
I probably shouldn’t have invoked Pareto. But the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
Do you really believe invoking the Pareto principle is a good argument against attempts to make that distribution more just?
I probably shouldn’t have invoked Pareto. But the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
All the Pareto principle says is that, absent external intervention, this is the distribution random statistics will give you. It says absolutely nothing about how difficult it would be to create a different distribution.
the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
All the Pareto principle says is that, absent external intervention, this is the distribution random statistics will give you. It says absolutely nothing about how difficult it would be to create a different distribution.
CharlesWT – care to share what your sources are for that information about China? Also, how many, and what sort of people from China do you come in regular contact with? I’m not challenging your information, just trying to get a sense of the sorts of perspectives that they represent.
CharlesWT – care to share what your sources are for that information about China? Also, how many, and what sort of people from China do you come in regular contact with? I’m not challenging your information, just trying to get a sense of the sorts of perspectives that they represent.
I don’t have any direct contact with people living in or are from China. But for a number of years, I’ve watched the video blogs and podcasts of people who have lived in China for ten to fifteen years. What they have to say is antidotal but, having traveled all over China, their experience of China is greater than most Chinese. Their advantage/disadvantage is that they are not Chinese. But they speak the language and are married to Chinese.
Here are two articles about the state of medical care in China.
“The short answer is “no.” China says it’s a socialist country, but a large part of its population struggles to afford medical services. Providing quality health care to a rapidly aging society is now a key challenge faced by the ruling Communist Party.”
Does China have universal health care? A long (and better) answer
““It’s about 5 a.m. and about 100 people have gathered in line in downtown Shangai,” the narrator says softly. “This isn’t the line to the movies or a holiday sale. It’s the entrance to the Shanghai Cancer Center at Fudong University. Those who are willing to lose a night’s sleep trying to try to get in line have one question in their mind: will I get to see a doctor today?”
It’s an appalling scene. We see sick people waiting in massive lines to receive medical attention. Scalpers are selling places in line to those most desperate. Some people are unceremoniously pulled out of line by security right before entering the hospital (presumably for cutting).”
The New York Times Reveals the Horrors of Capitalism—By Showing China’s State-Run Hospitals: If the Times had visited one of China’s many private hospitals, they would have found something quite different from the chaos depicted in China’s public health care facilities.
I don’t have any direct contact with people living in or are from China. But for a number of years, I’ve watched the video blogs and podcasts of people who have lived in China for ten to fifteen years. What they have to say is antidotal but, having traveled all over China, their experience of China is greater than most Chinese. Their advantage/disadvantage is that they are not Chinese. But they speak the language and are married to Chinese.
Here are two articles about the state of medical care in China.
“The short answer is “no.” China says it’s a socialist country, but a large part of its population struggles to afford medical services. Providing quality health care to a rapidly aging society is now a key challenge faced by the ruling Communist Party.”
Does China have universal health care? A long (and better) answer
““It’s about 5 a.m. and about 100 people have gathered in line in downtown Shangai,” the narrator says softly. “This isn’t the line to the movies or a holiday sale. It’s the entrance to the Shanghai Cancer Center at Fudong University. Those who are willing to lose a night’s sleep trying to try to get in line have one question in their mind: will I get to see a doctor today?”
It’s an appalling scene. We see sick people waiting in massive lines to receive medical attention. Scalpers are selling places in line to those most desperate. Some people are unceremoniously pulled out of line by security right before entering the hospital (presumably for cutting).”
The New York Times Reveals the Horrors of Capitalism—By Showing China’s State-Run Hospitals: If the Times had visited one of China’s many private hospitals, they would have found something quite different from the chaos depicted in China’s public health care facilities.
Pareto
Unless I’m mistaken, the ‘Pareto principle’ is an observation about things that tend to happen, absent outside interference. Pareto made the observation about the distribution of land ownership in Italy, and subsequently he and others found that it shows up in lots of contexts.
As human beings, we have the intelligence to recognize patterns like this, and the agency to moderate them or mitigate their effects if we choose to do so. The reasons we might choose to do so include things like the need for everyone to eat, even if they don’t have much money.
The Pareto principle is not a moral law. It’s not a normative statement. It’s just an observation.
If you look out the window and it looks like rain, you can choose to take an umbrella. You’re not obliged to just get wet.
free riders
I have a friend that I’ve known a long time now, probably fifty plus years at this point. He’s unusually intelligent, highly resourceful, and over time has acquired a variety of really useful skills, mostly in the areas of building trades. Carpentry, electrical, plumbing, woodworking, auto and other mechanics. He holds a couple of patents for mechanical gizmos he’s invented.
He has difficulty holding a job, because he’s abrasive to the point of obnoxiousness. He makes do with some minimal income from more or less home handyman projects for people who are willing to put with his personality. He does do really good work, he helped me shingle part of my house when he was visiting once, and the work he did was perfect, simply perfect.
He was on the verge of being homeless – as in, within a week or two of having no place to live – but he got some Covid relief money and used it to buy a used RV. He lives in that now, and pays a minimal rent for a space on a friend’s property that provides him with hookups for water and power. It’s cheaper than renting an apartment, with or without roommates.
He spends most of his days lately upgrading the plumbing and electrical systems on the RV to fix old broken stuff and generally bring it up to a level that supports year-round occupancy.
Absent the Covid relief stuff he’d probably be on the street, or, more likely, he probably would have offed himself.
He probably qualifies as a free rider, in the sense that he absorbs more goods and services from the public sector than he contributes, or even generates for himself.
I guess we could all just let him die or live in the park, but on the whole I’m fine with having public funds go toward keeping him alive.
Some people thrive, some don’t, for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it’s their fault, a lot of the time it’s not. Or, like my friend, sometimes it’s their fault, but it’s kind of baked in to who they are, and if we rely on them somehow turning themselves into some other kind of person, they’re gonna die before that happens.
I don’t really know how many people there are out there who, like my friend, find it somewhere between challenging and impossible to find a way to fit their square selves into the world’s round holes.
Why are some people such PITA’s? Why can’t they just accommodate reality? I have no idea.
But I’m fine with not just letting them sink beneath the freaking waves.
I’m cool with the rounding error theory of the public safety net. Some folks might be undeserving, some folks might have personal challenges, some folks might just be chronic fuck-ups.
Everybody’s gotta eat.
Pareto
Unless I’m mistaken, the ‘Pareto principle’ is an observation about things that tend to happen, absent outside interference. Pareto made the observation about the distribution of land ownership in Italy, and subsequently he and others found that it shows up in lots of contexts.
As human beings, we have the intelligence to recognize patterns like this, and the agency to moderate them or mitigate their effects if we choose to do so. The reasons we might choose to do so include things like the need for everyone to eat, even if they don’t have much money.
The Pareto principle is not a moral law. It’s not a normative statement. It’s just an observation.
If you look out the window and it looks like rain, you can choose to take an umbrella. You’re not obliged to just get wet.
free riders
I have a friend that I’ve known a long time now, probably fifty plus years at this point. He’s unusually intelligent, highly resourceful, and over time has acquired a variety of really useful skills, mostly in the areas of building trades. Carpentry, electrical, plumbing, woodworking, auto and other mechanics. He holds a couple of patents for mechanical gizmos he’s invented.
He has difficulty holding a job, because he’s abrasive to the point of obnoxiousness. He makes do with some minimal income from more or less home handyman projects for people who are willing to put with his personality. He does do really good work, he helped me shingle part of my house when he was visiting once, and the work he did was perfect, simply perfect.
He was on the verge of being homeless – as in, within a week or two of having no place to live – but he got some Covid relief money and used it to buy a used RV. He lives in that now, and pays a minimal rent for a space on a friend’s property that provides him with hookups for water and power. It’s cheaper than renting an apartment, with or without roommates.
He spends most of his days lately upgrading the plumbing and electrical systems on the RV to fix old broken stuff and generally bring it up to a level that supports year-round occupancy.
Absent the Covid relief stuff he’d probably be on the street, or, more likely, he probably would have offed himself.
He probably qualifies as a free rider, in the sense that he absorbs more goods and services from the public sector than he contributes, or even generates for himself.
I guess we could all just let him die or live in the park, but on the whole I’m fine with having public funds go toward keeping him alive.
Some people thrive, some don’t, for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it’s their fault, a lot of the time it’s not. Or, like my friend, sometimes it’s their fault, but it’s kind of baked in to who they are, and if we rely on them somehow turning themselves into some other kind of person, they’re gonna die before that happens.
I don’t really know how many people there are out there who, like my friend, find it somewhere between challenging and impossible to find a way to fit their square selves into the world’s round holes.
Why are some people such PITA’s? Why can’t they just accommodate reality? I have no idea.
But I’m fine with not just letting them sink beneath the freaking waves.
I’m cool with the rounding error theory of the public safety net. Some folks might be undeserving, some folks might have personal challenges, some folks might just be chronic fuck-ups.
Everybody’s gotta eat.
But the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
John “Papa Johns Pizza” Schnatter ran the numbers and figured out how much he’d have to raise the price of his pizzas in order to provide health insurance for all of his full time employees in order to comply with the ACA.
IIRC it was somewhere between 11 to 14 cents a pizza.
His response was basically fnck that, I’ll cut everybody’s hours so that they’re not full time.
14 cents a pizza.
I’m skeptical that the “kind of income distribution most here seem to want” is that far out of reach. The problem lies elsewhere.
In my opinion.
But the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
John “Papa Johns Pizza” Schnatter ran the numbers and figured out how much he’d have to raise the price of his pizzas in order to provide health insurance for all of his full time employees in order to comply with the ACA.
IIRC it was somewhere between 11 to 14 cents a pizza.
His response was basically fnck that, I’ll cut everybody’s hours so that they’re not full time.
14 cents a pizza.
I’m skeptical that the “kind of income distribution most here seem to want” is that far out of reach. The problem lies elsewhere.
In my opinion.
If the Times had visited one of China’s many private hospitals, they would have found something quite different from the chaos depicted in China’s public health care facilities.
Ha ha. All those silly Chinese people queuing for public health care, when they could just go to a private clinics where the American expats go. The ones that lure all the best doctors out of the public system. And no lines!
I see that article closes with some nice FUD about the imminent “implosion” of UK NHS too. Classy.
If the Times had visited one of China’s many private hospitals, they would have found something quite different from the chaos depicted in China’s public health care facilities.
Ha ha. All those silly Chinese people queuing for public health care, when they could just go to a private clinics where the American expats go. The ones that lure all the best doctors out of the public system. And no lines!
I see that article closes with some nice FUD about the imminent “implosion” of UK NHS too. Classy.
But the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
Perhaps it would be if “what I want” were taken to mean what I think would be ideal, though I’m not even sure what that would be. Something better than what we have now is preferable to … um, what we have now. So the kind of income distribution we had roughly 50 years ago, when the top 1% received a bit more than half the share of national income that they now do, would be a lot better than the current income distribution. And it has the virtue of having happened already, so perhaps not so hard to obtain, given that we already obtained it. That even after obscene concentrations of income – similar to what we have today – that occurred a little over a century ago.
But the kind of income distribution most here seem to want would be extremely difficult to obtain.
Perhaps it would be if “what I want” were taken to mean what I think would be ideal, though I’m not even sure what that would be. Something better than what we have now is preferable to … um, what we have now. So the kind of income distribution we had roughly 50 years ago, when the top 1% received a bit more than half the share of national income that they now do, would be a lot better than the current income distribution. And it has the virtue of having happened already, so perhaps not so hard to obtain, given that we already obtained it. That even after obscene concentrations of income – similar to what we have today – that occurred a little over a century ago.
The ones that lure all the best doctors out of the public system. And no lines!
From the other article:
“Well-educated doctors all want to work in public hospitals, where they can move up the career ladder by earning promotions in the state-run system. Because of that, China does not have enough general practitioners or family doctors, and the private sector is poorly developed.”
The ones that lure all the best doctors out of the public system. And no lines!
From the other article:
“Well-educated doctors all want to work in public hospitals, where they can move up the career ladder by earning promotions in the state-run system. Because of that, China does not have enough general practitioners or family doctors, and the private sector is poorly developed.”
Or, like my friend, sometimes it’s their fault, but it’s kind of baked in to who they are, and if we rely on them somehow turning themselves into some other kind of person, they’re gonna die before that happens.
I don’t say this to be snarky, but I want to put quotation marks around the word “fault” in that comment. Is having MS, or Parkinson’s, or dementia, the “fault” of the person who has those illnesses? We would never say that.
In some ways, we seem collectively to understand that short people can’t make themselves into tall people and v.v., and that many diseases just happen to people, through no discernible actions or choices on their part.
But we’re a long way from grasping that other, especially mental, characteristics are just as immutable or random.
I know someone who is struggling with chronic pain, and one attitude a lot of people meet that with is: it’s all in your head, and it’s your own fault if you can’t make it stop. (Either that or they tell the person how to fix it. This is after seventeen years, dozens and dozens of medical practitioners and tests, several special diets, massage, chiro, acupuncture, PT, blah blah. But a lot of people know what’s up after five seconds.)
Our system treats people with physical disabilities that prevent them from working badly enough. People like russell’s friend haven’t got a prayer, except I guess the kindness of friends.
Or, like my friend, sometimes it’s their fault, but it’s kind of baked in to who they are, and if we rely on them somehow turning themselves into some other kind of person, they’re gonna die before that happens.
I don’t say this to be snarky, but I want to put quotation marks around the word “fault” in that comment. Is having MS, or Parkinson’s, or dementia, the “fault” of the person who has those illnesses? We would never say that.
In some ways, we seem collectively to understand that short people can’t make themselves into tall people and v.v., and that many diseases just happen to people, through no discernible actions or choices on their part.
But we’re a long way from grasping that other, especially mental, characteristics are just as immutable or random.
I know someone who is struggling with chronic pain, and one attitude a lot of people meet that with is: it’s all in your head, and it’s your own fault if you can’t make it stop. (Either that or they tell the person how to fix it. This is after seventeen years, dozens and dozens of medical practitioners and tests, several special diets, massage, chiro, acupuncture, PT, blah blah. But a lot of people know what’s up after five seconds.)
Our system treats people with physical disabilities that prevent them from working badly enough. People like russell’s friend haven’t got a prayer, except I guess the kindness of friends.
Yes. And from the second, very bad, article:
In China, the government sets fixed salaries for PCPs, which are much lower than what one could earn in the private sector. Naturally, this attracts fewer professionals into primary care.
Someone has their story wrong.
Look, I don’t think anyone here is shocked to find out that a country of 1.4 billion people — one in the grip of an authoritarian regime, and still busy unevenly clawing its way from the 16th century into the 21st — isn’t quite managing to live up to its ideals on the health care delivery front.
Especially when there appear to be some unfortunate interactions with a new nouveau riche class and a parallel private system.
But I don’t think any of that is insoluble. I daresay some of those problems even sound like they have easy fixes. Why not working on providing a better career advancement path for PCPs working in rural clinics, for example?
Yes. And from the second, very bad, article:
In China, the government sets fixed salaries for PCPs, which are much lower than what one could earn in the private sector. Naturally, this attracts fewer professionals into primary care.
Someone has their story wrong.
Look, I don’t think anyone here is shocked to find out that a country of 1.4 billion people — one in the grip of an authoritarian regime, and still busy unevenly clawing its way from the 16th century into the 21st — isn’t quite managing to live up to its ideals on the health care delivery front.
Especially when there appear to be some unfortunate interactions with a new nouveau riche class and a parallel private system.
But I don’t think any of that is insoluble. I daresay some of those problems even sound like they have easy fixes. Why not working on providing a better career advancement path for PCPs working in rural clinics, for example?
In some ways, we seem collectively to understand that short people can’t make themselves into tall people and v.v., and that many diseases just happen to people, through no discernible actions or choices on their part.
But we’re a long way from grasping that other, especially mental, characteristics are just as immutable or random.
Or grappling with how that translates into societal success.
The reason that a power law (the Pareto principle) applies to things like income distribution is that tiny initial advantages compound on themselves over and over to produce wildly disproportionate outcomes.
For example, it might actually be the case that Jeff Bezos was simply born with an extra percentage point or two of some “meritorious” attribute, like ‘cunning’ or ‘diligence’, on his metaphorical D&D player card. Relative to some other kid in his neighborhood from similar circumstances.
It doesn’t follow from there that a resulting three order of magnitude difference in income is “deserved”. It certainly doesn’t follow that Jeff’s in-born advantage should get him better health care, say, or have food when his neighbor doesn’t.
In some ways, we seem collectively to understand that short people can’t make themselves into tall people and v.v., and that many diseases just happen to people, through no discernible actions or choices on their part.
But we’re a long way from grasping that other, especially mental, characteristics are just as immutable or random.
Or grappling with how that translates into societal success.
The reason that a power law (the Pareto principle) applies to things like income distribution is that tiny initial advantages compound on themselves over and over to produce wildly disproportionate outcomes.
For example, it might actually be the case that Jeff Bezos was simply born with an extra percentage point or two of some “meritorious” attribute, like ‘cunning’ or ‘diligence’, on his metaphorical D&D player card. Relative to some other kid in his neighborhood from similar circumstances.
It doesn’t follow from there that a resulting three order of magnitude difference in income is “deserved”. It certainly doesn’t follow that Jeff’s in-born advantage should get him better health care, say, or have food when his neighbor doesn’t.
I’m not remotely asserting that our medical care is like China’s, but I get tired of the cottage industry of articles about how everyone else’s care is terrible so we shouldn’t think for a second about trying to improve ours. (Long lines at the NHS used to be all the rage! Now it’s Canada I keep hearing about.)
When I needed a dermatologist some years ago, I could choose one that was more than an hour away, or I could wait six months for an appointment. Great news for people who can’t drive themselves to faraway appointments, and I don’t think this is remotely unusual, especially in rural America. Not to mention that I’m not even in that rural an area.
Never mind that you have to have a PhD and a private administrative assistant, or lots and lots of time on your hands to spend on the phone trying to sort out glitches, to understand and navigate Medicare or the ACA (or so is my impression; I only know about the Medicare part).
Our system is designed to keep people dependent and afraid. The byzantine complications are a feature, not a bug. A significant percentage of hospitals in the US are owned by Catholic entities that won’t pay for birth control as part of their employees’ health insurance, and that restrict or forbid certain kinds of medical care.
I don’t give a damn what’s wrong with health care systems in other countries; our own provides enough room for improvement to keep us busy for a long time.
I’m not remotely asserting that our medical care is like China’s, but I get tired of the cottage industry of articles about how everyone else’s care is terrible so we shouldn’t think for a second about trying to improve ours. (Long lines at the NHS used to be all the rage! Now it’s Canada I keep hearing about.)
When I needed a dermatologist some years ago, I could choose one that was more than an hour away, or I could wait six months for an appointment. Great news for people who can’t drive themselves to faraway appointments, and I don’t think this is remotely unusual, especially in rural America. Not to mention that I’m not even in that rural an area.
Never mind that you have to have a PhD and a private administrative assistant, or lots and lots of time on your hands to spend on the phone trying to sort out glitches, to understand and navigate Medicare or the ACA (or so is my impression; I only know about the Medicare part).
Our system is designed to keep people dependent and afraid. The byzantine complications are a feature, not a bug. A significant percentage of hospitals in the US are owned by Catholic entities that won’t pay for birth control as part of their employees’ health insurance, and that restrict or forbid certain kinds of medical care.
I don’t give a damn what’s wrong with health care systems in other countries; our own provides enough room for improvement to keep us busy for a long time.
jack lecou @3:19: yes!
jack lecou @3:19: yes!
The problem lies elsewhere.
A really masterly understatement of a punchline, after the set-up. And with the additional benefit of being true true true.
The problem lies elsewhere.
A really masterly understatement of a punchline, after the set-up. And with the additional benefit of being true true true.
It doesn’t follow from there that a resulting three order of magnitude difference in income is “deserved”.
Yes a million times.
I tried to say this yesterday, much more clumsily. And since Bezos’s “income” is kept deceptively low, I would like to point out that he has a net worth of, let’s see, five orders of magnitude times that of someone with a million dollars in assets, which, according to this quickly googled piece, amounts to about 8% of American adults. Never mind the millions who have no assets whatsoever. And also never mind that if a good chunk of your million in assets is your house, and you run into a medical disaster, you may still find yourself with nothing much before too much time goes by.
This is a wonderful graphic, which might even have been posted here a while back. Or else at BJ, I don’t remember.
Also, from the CNBC link above:
Nothing like a little confirmation bias, is there?
It doesn’t follow from there that a resulting three order of magnitude difference in income is “deserved”.
Yes a million times.
I tried to say this yesterday, much more clumsily. And since Bezos’s “income” is kept deceptively low, I would like to point out that he has a net worth of, let’s see, five orders of magnitude times that of someone with a million dollars in assets, which, according to this quickly googled piece, amounts to about 8% of American adults. Never mind the millions who have no assets whatsoever. And also never mind that if a good chunk of your million in assets is your house, and you run into a medical disaster, you may still find yourself with nothing much before too much time goes by.
This is a wonderful graphic, which might even have been posted here a while back. Or else at BJ, I don’t remember.
Also, from the CNBC link above:
Nothing like a little confirmation bias, is there?
And having a particular mindset almost universally contributed to their success, Hogan said.
I mean, how do we suppose Hogan managed to establish the direction of causation here?
😉
And having a particular mindset almost universally contributed to their success, Hogan said.
I mean, how do we suppose Hogan managed to establish the direction of causation here?
😉
Nothing like a little confirmation bias, is there?
Wow.
Nothing like a little confirmation bias, is there?
Wow.
The book Billionaire Wilderness by Justin Farrell that I mentioned earlier is full of stories he gathered from his field work with the ultra rich in Teton County, and it really does bring out the extent to which this sort of confirmation bias colors their attitudes towards wealth and social responsibility, and their connection with the less well off in their community. The book peters out a bit in the latter third, and could be more incisive in its commentary, but the ethnography is really informative.
The book Billionaire Wilderness by Justin Farrell that I mentioned earlier is full of stories he gathered from his field work with the ultra rich in Teton County, and it really does bring out the extent to which this sort of confirmation bias colors their attitudes towards wealth and social responsibility, and their connection with the less well off in their community. The book peters out a bit in the latter third, and could be more incisive in its commentary, but the ethnography is really informative.
Sweden has recuperated a lot since 1995. Currently, it’s more economically free than the US.
Good to know that we can strive towards Swedish levels of income equality, taxation and social services without destroying our freedoms or our country.
Sweden has recuperated a lot since 1995. Currently, it’s more economically free than the US.
Good to know that we can strive towards Swedish levels of income equality, taxation and social services without destroying our freedoms or our country.
It’s difficult to consult all the, except for bad luck, would-be millionaires to see what percentage of them believed they were in control of their own destiny…
It’s difficult to consult all the, except for bad luck, would-be millionaires to see what percentage of them believed they were in control of their own destiny…
He found that around 97% of millionaires surveyed believed they were in control of their own destiny.
but how can this be, with the soul-crushing tax burden we place on them?
He found that around 97% of millionaires surveyed believed they were in control of their own destiny.
but how can this be, with the soul-crushing tax burden we place on them?
It’s difficult to consult all the, except for bad luck, would-be millionaires to see what percentage of them believed they were in control of their own destiny…
Which is maybe precisely why nobody should pay any attention to a financial advice grifter who makes stupid claims like “having a particular mindset almost universally contributed to their success”…?
That said, I think it would be huge fun to do a huge longitudinal study of people following this guy’s ‘how to be a millionaire’ advice. What do you want to bet the end results will look exactly like a sequence of appropriately weighted random dice rolls.
It’s difficult to consult all the, except for bad luck, would-be millionaires to see what percentage of them believed they were in control of their own destiny…
Which is maybe precisely why nobody should pay any attention to a financial advice grifter who makes stupid claims like “having a particular mindset almost universally contributed to their success”…?
That said, I think it would be huge fun to do a huge longitudinal study of people following this guy’s ‘how to be a millionaire’ advice. What do you want to bet the end results will look exactly like a sequence of appropriately weighted random dice rolls.
I’ve had several opportunities to be a millionaire. Not being one is more due to bad decision-making than bad luck.
I’ve had several opportunities to be a millionaire. Not being one is more due to bad decision-making than bad luck.
Inflation devalues everything. It’s funny how “millionaire” still seems to inspire the same awe as in oh, say, 1955, even though…
What a dollar use to get us
Now won’t get a head of lettuce…
or in non-musical terms, the dollar buys maybe 10% of what it bought when I was a kid.
I guess “ten-millionaire” just isn’t catchy enough. Or maybe the finance gurus and influencers are actually innumerate….
Or both.
Inflation devalues everything. It’s funny how “millionaire” still seems to inspire the same awe as in oh, say, 1955, even though…
What a dollar use to get us
Now won’t get a head of lettuce…
or in non-musical terms, the dollar buys maybe 10% of what it bought when I was a kid.
I guess “ten-millionaire” just isn’t catchy enough. Or maybe the finance gurus and influencers are actually innumerate….
Or both.
Not being one is more due to bad decision-making than bad luck.
Or you had the bad luck to be born a bad decision-maker. 😉
If only my brother and I hadn’t let our mother throw out our baseball card collection………
Not being one is more due to bad decision-making than bad luck.
Or you had the bad luck to be born a bad decision-maker. 😉
If only my brother and I hadn’t let our mother throw out our baseball card collection………
Yes, today’s dollar is worth less than a nickel 100 years ago.
Yes, today’s dollar is worth less than a nickel 100 years ago.
Yes, today’s dollar is worth less than a nickel 100 years ago.
Basically, the value of the dollar dropped by around 90% (i.e. it became worth a tenth of what it used to be) during the various gas shocks in the 1970s. Since then, the usual gradual inflation has cut it by about half — with the (enormous) caveat that you can now buy a lot of extremely useful stuff that, in 1970, you couldn’t have bought for any price.
All of which makes 1-to-1 comparisons of “what the dollar is worth” problematic. Essentially, you can prove pretty much any thesis you decide to push. All you have to do is take some care with which prices you are comparing.
Yes, today’s dollar is worth less than a nickel 100 years ago.
Basically, the value of the dollar dropped by around 90% (i.e. it became worth a tenth of what it used to be) during the various gas shocks in the 1970s. Since then, the usual gradual inflation has cut it by about half — with the (enormous) caveat that you can now buy a lot of extremely useful stuff that, in 1970, you couldn’t have bought for any price.
All of which makes 1-to-1 comparisons of “what the dollar is worth” problematic. Essentially, you can prove pretty much any thesis you decide to push. All you have to do is take some care with which prices you are comparing.
Okay, wj, I’ll narrow it down and argue that for many, many people — especially older ones like us — a million dollars in net worth in 1955 represented far more financial security than a million dollars does now, even assuming similar life expectancy.
For another benchmark, when I left home for college in 1968, my parents’ generation still thought anyone who made $10,000 a year was unimaginably well off.
Okay, wj, I’ll narrow it down and argue that for many, many people — especially older ones like us — a million dollars in net worth in 1955 represented far more financial security than a million dollars does now, even assuming similar life expectancy.
For another benchmark, when I left home for college in 1968, my parents’ generation still thought anyone who made $10,000 a year was unimaginably well off.
Unprovable, I realize.
But hey, it’s a blog.
Unprovable, I realize.
But hey, it’s a blog.
I’ve had several opportunities to be a millionaire. Not being one is more due to bad decision-making than bad luck.
Having those opportunities in the first place probably took a certain amount of good fortune, whether you realize it or not.
I’d also be careful about what you label “bad decision-making”.
I mean, if you missed out on an obviously fantastic investment opportunity because you’d just finished snorting the last of your savings account off the back of your new $300,000 Vertu Signature Cobra, then ok, sure.
But if it was because you’d just drained your savings account on a new roof for the house and a vacation for the kids, maybe not so much.
Ditto if it was because you’d gotten the wrong kind of degree a couple decades previously. Or pissed the wrong guy off somewhere along the way. Or turned something down because it sounded like a scam at the time. (Or neglected to invest in a couple of thousand bitcoin back when they were a nickel or two a piece.)
We have a tendency to apply a just-world fallacy to things and blame ourselves, but a lot of it is still actually just random chance and unforeseeable circumstance.
I’ve had several opportunities to be a millionaire. Not being one is more due to bad decision-making than bad luck.
Having those opportunities in the first place probably took a certain amount of good fortune, whether you realize it or not.
I’d also be careful about what you label “bad decision-making”.
I mean, if you missed out on an obviously fantastic investment opportunity because you’d just finished snorting the last of your savings account off the back of your new $300,000 Vertu Signature Cobra, then ok, sure.
But if it was because you’d just drained your savings account on a new roof for the house and a vacation for the kids, maybe not so much.
Ditto if it was because you’d gotten the wrong kind of degree a couple decades previously. Or pissed the wrong guy off somewhere along the way. Or turned something down because it sounded like a scam at the time. (Or neglected to invest in a couple of thousand bitcoin back when they were a nickel or two a piece.)
We have a tendency to apply a just-world fallacy to things and blame ourselves, but a lot of it is still actually just random chance and unforeseeable circumstance.
(Or neglected to invest in a couple of thousand bitcoin back when they were a nickel or two a piece.)
I’ve been in and out of bitcoin a number of times. I’ve always managed to be out every time it decided to go up a couple of magnitudes. 🙁
(Or neglected to invest in a couple of thousand bitcoin back when they were a nickel or two a piece.)
I’ve been in and out of bitcoin a number of times. I’ve always managed to be out every time it decided to go up a couple of magnitudes. 🙁
I’ve always managed to be out every time it decided to go up a couple of magnitudes.
Well, I suppose somebody had to be on the other side of those trades other people were getting rich on.
I’ve always managed to be out every time it decided to go up a couple of magnitudes.
Well, I suppose somebody had to be on the other side of those trades other people were getting rich on.
don’t have any direct contact with people living in or are from China. But for a number of years, I’ve watched the video blogs and podcasts of people who have lived in China for ten to fifteen years. What they have to say is antidotal but, having traveled all over China, their experience of China is greater than most Chinese. Their advantage/disadvantage is that they are not Chinese. But they speak the language and are married to Chinese.
This thread has come back on itself in an interesting way, specifically seeing CharlesWT’s discussion of where his China information comes from and coming back to confirmation bias.
When you talk about Chinese medical care system, there is a large measure of ethnocentricity here, with the idea that a medical care system is only measured in terms of Western medicine. As I mentioned in an earlier post about Korea, traditional medicine occupies a large part of the space for medical care, but you aren’t going to get much information from vloggers about it. I’m not super convinced about its efficacy, but since a lot of medical care is not necessarily medical interventions, but more keeping good health, the system functions well enough. Of course, if you come down with pancreatic cancer or something like that, you are probably out of luck, but it’s not like you are going to be cured and out in a week if you get it in the states.
Travelling around China, presumably because someone has the financial wherewithal and the wanderlust, they probably are going to take away rather minimal information on how the local populace deals with medical issues. (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine how Charles got his information about “farmers secretly agree[ing] to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas.” I’m sure they were simply chatty beyond all measure with the laowai who happens to be drinking some juhuacha on the corner…)
In fact, the fact that most of the information we get is from young people who are doing their world tour means that we have a pretty big blindspot in terms of how medical systems function day to day in different countries. It also one of the reasons why Americans can get truely rogered by the system, because it always seems like the people who end up having problems are ones who are considered less worthy because it is probably their fault that they are sick.
Of course, having a broad canvas like China, where one can probably find evidence for anything, is probably an advantage.
don’t have any direct contact with people living in or are from China. But for a number of years, I’ve watched the video blogs and podcasts of people who have lived in China for ten to fifteen years. What they have to say is antidotal but, having traveled all over China, their experience of China is greater than most Chinese. Their advantage/disadvantage is that they are not Chinese. But they speak the language and are married to Chinese.
This thread has come back on itself in an interesting way, specifically seeing CharlesWT’s discussion of where his China information comes from and coming back to confirmation bias.
When you talk about Chinese medical care system, there is a large measure of ethnocentricity here, with the idea that a medical care system is only measured in terms of Western medicine. As I mentioned in an earlier post about Korea, traditional medicine occupies a large part of the space for medical care, but you aren’t going to get much information from vloggers about it. I’m not super convinced about its efficacy, but since a lot of medical care is not necessarily medical interventions, but more keeping good health, the system functions well enough. Of course, if you come down with pancreatic cancer or something like that, you are probably out of luck, but it’s not like you are going to be cured and out in a week if you get it in the states.
Travelling around China, presumably because someone has the financial wherewithal and the wanderlust, they probably are going to take away rather minimal information on how the local populace deals with medical issues. (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine how Charles got his information about “farmers secretly agree[ing] to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas.” I’m sure they were simply chatty beyond all measure with the laowai who happens to be drinking some juhuacha on the corner…)
In fact, the fact that most of the information we get is from young people who are doing their world tour means that we have a pretty big blindspot in terms of how medical systems function day to day in different countries. It also one of the reasons why Americans can get truely rogered by the system, because it always seems like the people who end up having problems are ones who are considered less worthy because it is probably their fault that they are sick.
Of course, having a broad canvas like China, where one can probably find evidence for anything, is probably an advantage.
Okay, wj, I’ll narrow it down and argue that for many, many people — especially older ones like us — a million dollars in net worth in 1955 represented far more financial security than a million dollars does now, even assuming similar life expectancy.
I think this is accurate.
“Being a millionaire” still sounds impressive somehow, but I’m sure a lot of the people Hogan interviewed were indeed fairly ordinary people, with the good-but-not-extraordinary fortune to hold decent, steady jobs with opportunities to buy homes and put a little to the side.
In other words, the kind of lives many people who entered working life in the 50s or 60s probably could have expected to have as a matter of course, even if the nominal dollar amounts were different, but is rarer and rarer for latter generations.
The article headline was “Here’s how a they got wealthy”, but the truth is, a million or two isn’t really “wealthy”. It’s roughly the amount that corresponds to a moderately comfortable life we should *all* be able to expect. It’s only in the context of our extreme inequality — abject fragility contrasted with obscene privilege — that it seems special.
Okay, wj, I’ll narrow it down and argue that for many, many people — especially older ones like us — a million dollars in net worth in 1955 represented far more financial security than a million dollars does now, even assuming similar life expectancy.
I think this is accurate.
“Being a millionaire” still sounds impressive somehow, but I’m sure a lot of the people Hogan interviewed were indeed fairly ordinary people, with the good-but-not-extraordinary fortune to hold decent, steady jobs with opportunities to buy homes and put a little to the side.
In other words, the kind of lives many people who entered working life in the 50s or 60s probably could have expected to have as a matter of course, even if the nominal dollar amounts were different, but is rarer and rarer for latter generations.
The article headline was “Here’s how a they got wealthy”, but the truth is, a million or two isn’t really “wealthy”. It’s roughly the amount that corresponds to a moderately comfortable life we should *all* be able to expect. It’s only in the context of our extreme inequality — abject fragility contrasted with obscene privilege — that it seems special.
Great thought train, lj. The image of the farmers revealing their top secret machinations to some random western stranger made me laugh out loud.
My son spent five years in China. He was fluent enough in Mandarin for everyday life, he lived in three different cities but mostly Yulin, in north Shaanxi. And he would be the first to tell you that he didn’t even scratch the surface in terms of being knowledgeable about the country.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been doing a series of picture posts at BJ from my China trip in 2010. Links:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/04/08/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-18/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/04/27/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-28/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/05/06/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-38/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/05/13/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-48/
Great thought train, lj. The image of the farmers revealing their top secret machinations to some random western stranger made me laugh out loud.
My son spent five years in China. He was fluent enough in Mandarin for everyday life, he lived in three different cities but mostly Yulin, in north Shaanxi. And he would be the first to tell you that he didn’t even scratch the surface in terms of being knowledgeable about the country.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been doing a series of picture posts at BJ from my China trip in 2010. Links:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/04/08/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-18/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/04/27/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-28/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/05/06/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-38/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/05/13/on-the-road-janiem-china-part-48/
The article headline was “Here’s how a they got wealthy”, but the truth is, a million or two isn’t really “wealthy”. It’s roughly the amount that corresponds to a moderately comfortable life we should *all* be able to expect. It’s only in the context of our extreme inequality — abject fragility contrasted with obscene privilege — that it seems special.
Yes, this.
The article headline was “Here’s how a they got wealthy”, but the truth is, a million or two isn’t really “wealthy”. It’s roughly the amount that corresponds to a moderately comfortable life we should *all* be able to expect. It’s only in the context of our extreme inequality — abject fragility contrasted with obscene privilege — that it seems special.
Yes, this.
Speaking of choices and bias, there’s a point to be made about what wealth is, anyway.
Somewhere out there, there are two very similar people.
One of them did all the things I imagine Hogan says people should do. She buckled down and scored a spot at a top college. Got a degree and a job in some soulless, but lucrative field. Used a little inheritance in her late 30s to get onto the housing ladder, or set it aside in sensible mutual funds, etc., etc.
The other one went to lots of fun parties in high school. Went to a State College for a degree in poetry, but then dropped out their senior year to ride the rails for a couple of years, or joined the Peace Corps or something. Eventually went back to finish the degree and thence to social work. Or teaching. Or some other ridiculously-underpaid-but-socially-indispensable profession. Blew that same inheritance on a multi-year leave of absence traveling the world someplace and writing an interesting but unpopular book. Etc. Etc.
At the end of the story, we certainly know for
a fact who has more “net worth”. I think we’d need a lot more information to know who’s had a richer life or has contributed more to the world.
Speaking of choices and bias, there’s a point to be made about what wealth is, anyway.
Somewhere out there, there are two very similar people.
One of them did all the things I imagine Hogan says people should do. She buckled down and scored a spot at a top college. Got a degree and a job in some soulless, but lucrative field. Used a little inheritance in her late 30s to get onto the housing ladder, or set it aside in sensible mutual funds, etc., etc.
The other one went to lots of fun parties in high school. Went to a State College for a degree in poetry, but then dropped out their senior year to ride the rails for a couple of years, or joined the Peace Corps or something. Eventually went back to finish the degree and thence to social work. Or teaching. Or some other ridiculously-underpaid-but-socially-indispensable profession. Blew that same inheritance on a multi-year leave of absence traveling the world someplace and writing an interesting but unpopular book. Etc. Etc.
At the end of the story, we certainly know for
a fact who has more “net worth”. I think we’d need a lot more information to know who’s had a richer life or has contributed more to the world.
As I mentioned in an earlier post about Korea, traditional medicine occupies a large part of the space for medical care, but you aren’t going to get much information from vloggers about it.
A lot of traditional Chinese medicine was lost during the great leap backward and the cultural devolution. And a lot of the current TCM was plucked out of thin air by scammers. Some practitioners wanting training in real TCM go to Japan to get it.
Travelling around China, presumably because someone has the financial wherewithal and the wanderlust, they probably are going to take away rather minimal information on how the local populace deals with medical issues.
The guys I follow the most lived and worked in a number of different places in China and Mongolia. They didn’t have a lot of money. The money for their trip through northern China was crowdsourced. Since they were making a travel log, they had to cover expenses for themselves, several crewmembers, cameras, drones, and other equipment. They didn’t travel from tourist trap to tourist trap. But on motorcycles to out-of-the-way places where the locals had never seen a foreigner before. They’ve traveled through almost all of China’s provinces.
For a while, one of the guys had a job training Chinese doctors in the use of English language medical terms. And he married a Chinese doctor. He likely has a more nuanced understanding of Chinese medical care than the average ex-pat.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine how Charles got his information about “farmers secretly agree[ing] to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas.”
“On a dark November night in 1978, 18 Chinese peasants from Xiaogang village in Anhui province secretly divided communal land to be farmed by individual families, who would keep what was left over after meeting state quotas. Such a division was illegal and highly dangerous, but the peasants felt the risks were worth it. The timing is significant for our story. The peasants took action one month before the “reform” congress of the party was announced. Thus, without fanfare, began economic reform, as spontaneous land division spread to other villages. One farmer said, “When one family’s chicken catches the pest, the whole village catches it. When one village has it, the whole county will be infected.””
How China Won and Russia Lost
As I mentioned in an earlier post about Korea, traditional medicine occupies a large part of the space for medical care, but you aren’t going to get much information from vloggers about it.
A lot of traditional Chinese medicine was lost during the great leap backward and the cultural devolution. And a lot of the current TCM was plucked out of thin air by scammers. Some practitioners wanting training in real TCM go to Japan to get it.
Travelling around China, presumably because someone has the financial wherewithal and the wanderlust, they probably are going to take away rather minimal information on how the local populace deals with medical issues.
The guys I follow the most lived and worked in a number of different places in China and Mongolia. They didn’t have a lot of money. The money for their trip through northern China was crowdsourced. Since they were making a travel log, they had to cover expenses for themselves, several crewmembers, cameras, drones, and other equipment. They didn’t travel from tourist trap to tourist trap. But on motorcycles to out-of-the-way places where the locals had never seen a foreigner before. They’ve traveled through almost all of China’s provinces.
For a while, one of the guys had a job training Chinese doctors in the use of English language medical terms. And he married a Chinese doctor. He likely has a more nuanced understanding of Chinese medical care than the average ex-pat.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine how Charles got his information about “farmers secretly agree[ing] to split up farmland among themselves and start private markets for any production beyond government quotas.”
“On a dark November night in 1978, 18 Chinese peasants from Xiaogang village in Anhui province secretly divided communal land to be farmed by individual families, who would keep what was left over after meeting state quotas. Such a division was illegal and highly dangerous, but the peasants felt the risks were worth it. The timing is significant for our story. The peasants took action one month before the “reform” congress of the party was announced. Thus, without fanfare, began economic reform, as spontaneous land division spread to other villages. One farmer said, “When one family’s chicken catches the pest, the whole village catches it. When one village has it, the whole county will be infected.””
How China Won and Russia Lost
I am, give or take, right around being a “millionaire”, if you combine retirement savings (even allowing for the deferred taxes), home equity (thanks Atlanta housing market!), and liquid savings. I think the term needs to be retired or redefined in some fashion. I am not wealthy, but I have “enough”, for my lifestyle. If I had more I could spend it on travel and more extravagant socializing, but it’s never been a priority for me to rack up dough for those things. No kids, so that’s a significant factor.
I am, give or take, right around being a “millionaire”, if you combine retirement savings (even allowing for the deferred taxes), home equity (thanks Atlanta housing market!), and liquid savings. I think the term needs to be retired or redefined in some fashion. I am not wealthy, but I have “enough”, for my lifestyle. If I had more I could spend it on travel and more extravagant socializing, but it’s never been a priority for me to rack up dough for those things. No kids, so that’s a significant factor.
Being a foreigner wandering around China means that you are probably richer than 90% of the people there. And being able to wander means that your health is probably not really an issue.
For a while, one of the guys had a job training Chinese doctors in the use of English language medical terms. And he married a Chinese doctor. He likely has a more nuanced understanding of Chinese medical care than the average ex-pat.
So why don’t you pass on his vlog links?
On a dark November night in 1978,
from a Hoover Institute article by a non Chinese speaking first author. Look, I don’t want to dump on Kate Zhou
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/kate-zhou
who has the books How the Farmers Changed China and China’s Long March to Freedom, Grassroots Modernization, which I’ve not read, but one review of the book
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729146#?seq=1
Has this
Still, what might better be seen as a natural desire to better one’s own household at the expense of others is potrayed as a rather exaggerated kind of raw intelligence
It would probably be better if you actually read the whole article rather than coping the first graf. Especially since it is only one page long.
Throughout the reform process, the Chinese Communist Party simply reacted to (and wisely did not oppose) bottom-up reform initiatives that emanated largely from the rural population. Deng Xiaoping’s famous description of Chinese reform as “fording the river by feeling for the stones” is not incorrect, but it was the Chinese people who placed the stones under his feet.
and
Real reforms, whether dictated from the top or bubbling up from below, require a reform constituency. In the Chinese case, a large percentage of the population was recovering from the catastrophes of the Mao years. Rural dwellers, in particular, had witnessed the chaos of the Great Leap and had seen their parents and children die from starvation during the 1958–61 famine. They learned they had to take care of themselves. The urban elite had been ripped from the cities to a life of work and reeducation in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution, and a whole generation had been deprived of schooling. In the Russian case, the last famine lay three decades in the past. After the war, few people were executed for political crimes (political dissent became instead a mental disorder); the Gulag had been gradually dismantled after Nikita Khrushchev’s secret speech of 1956. All lived under the motto, “We pretend to work and you pretend to pay.”
Surveys show that Russians were basically content with the system, comfortable in the bosom of their state enterprise or state farm.
China had a reform constituency; Russia did not.
Taking the China example as some sort of example of the wonders of libertarian thinking brings to mind what Pauli said
“This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”
Being a foreigner wandering around China means that you are probably richer than 90% of the people there. And being able to wander means that your health is probably not really an issue.
For a while, one of the guys had a job training Chinese doctors in the use of English language medical terms. And he married a Chinese doctor. He likely has a more nuanced understanding of Chinese medical care than the average ex-pat.
So why don’t you pass on his vlog links?
On a dark November night in 1978,
from a Hoover Institute article by a non Chinese speaking first author. Look, I don’t want to dump on Kate Zhou
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/kate-zhou
who has the books How the Farmers Changed China and China’s Long March to Freedom, Grassroots Modernization, which I’ve not read, but one review of the book
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729146#?seq=1
Has this
Still, what might better be seen as a natural desire to better one’s own household at the expense of others is potrayed as a rather exaggerated kind of raw intelligence
It would probably be better if you actually read the whole article rather than coping the first graf. Especially since it is only one page long.
Throughout the reform process, the Chinese Communist Party simply reacted to (and wisely did not oppose) bottom-up reform initiatives that emanated largely from the rural population. Deng Xiaoping’s famous description of Chinese reform as “fording the river by feeling for the stones” is not incorrect, but it was the Chinese people who placed the stones under his feet.
and
Real reforms, whether dictated from the top or bubbling up from below, require a reform constituency. In the Chinese case, a large percentage of the population was recovering from the catastrophes of the Mao years. Rural dwellers, in particular, had witnessed the chaos of the Great Leap and had seen their parents and children die from starvation during the 1958–61 famine. They learned they had to take care of themselves. The urban elite had been ripped from the cities to a life of work and reeducation in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution, and a whole generation had been deprived of schooling. In the Russian case, the last famine lay three decades in the past. After the war, few people were executed for political crimes (political dissent became instead a mental disorder); the Gulag had been gradually dismantled after Nikita Khrushchev’s secret speech of 1956. All lived under the motto, “We pretend to work and you pretend to pay.”
Surveys show that Russians were basically content with the system, comfortable in the bosom of their state enterprise or state farm.
China had a reform constituency; Russia did not.
Taking the China example as some sort of example of the wonders of libertarian thinking brings to mind what Pauli said
“This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”
Forgot to add these links about the “lost” traditional Chinese medicine
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168851008002078
and
https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12906-020-02910-x
and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113761/
Forgot to add these links about the “lost” traditional Chinese medicine
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168851008002078
and
https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12906-020-02910-x
and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113761/
So why don’t you pass on his vlog links?
ADVChina
ADV Podcasts
laowhy86
serpentza
So why don’t you pass on his vlog links?
ADVChina
ADV Podcasts
laowhy86
serpentza
Ah, serpentza is the one married to the doctor.
Ah, serpentza is the one married to the doctor.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Sometimes being a foreigner lets you see or record things in a way that’s valuable even to the locals. Like Alexis de Tocqueville in America, or Lafcadio Hearn in Japan.
But. If I were, say, a Chinese traveler visiting the US for a while right now, I’m not sure I’d want to bet that I’d be able to put together a truly accurate picture of much of anything. Certainly not from chance conversations as I hiked around. Probably not even from working and living for a few years, or making close friends.
Heck, plenty of Americans disagree vehemently about much of what’s going on. In their own country. The one they’ve lived in their whole lives. Like, how their health care system works. Or who’s President.
It’s certainly possible to make carefully qualified observations, or hear interesting opinions from new buddies over beers. And it’s an experience I heartily recommend. But drawing broad conclusions is an entirely different matter. A lot of humility is called for there, in inverse proportion to our familiarity and experience.
Sometimes being a foreigner lets you see or record things in a way that’s valuable even to the locals. Like Alexis de Tocqueville in America, or Lafcadio Hearn in Japan.
But. If I were, say, a Chinese traveler visiting the US for a while right now, I’m not sure I’d want to bet that I’d be able to put together a truly accurate picture of much of anything. Certainly not from chance conversations as I hiked around. Probably not even from working and living for a few years, or making close friends.
Heck, plenty of Americans disagree vehemently about much of what’s going on. In their own country. The one they’ve lived in their whole lives. Like, how their health care system works. Or who’s President.
It’s certainly possible to make carefully qualified observations, or hear interesting opinions from new buddies over beers. And it’s an experience I heartily recommend. But drawing broad conclusions is an entirely different matter. A lot of humility is called for there, in inverse proportion to our familiarity and experience.
Charles, thanks for the links, hope this isn’t too harsh, but here goes.
I started out with serpentza. I don’t think he’s totally wrong, but he’s definitely coming from this with an angle. You go to the youtube page and you are greeted with ‘The Original Chinese vlogger’ and videos titled (and these are the ones that I saw, I don’t know if they are sensitive to any algorithms)
-China’s Ridiculous Online SCAMS Targeting YOU!
-The 5 Most Illegal Things I Did in China
-China’s Internal Passport System – Country Folk Can’t Enter the Cities
-Why are Chinese Schoolgirls doing this?
-I was a Bodyguard for a Chinese Serial Rapist
I wasn’t going to dismiss him just because he wants the clicks though, so I went to
China v. Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVMbp5-bJAM
because I figured I’d be better able to evaluate things.
It’s fine as far as it goes, his Chinese seems quite relaxed and he speaks some Japanese. But I kind of balked when he argued that because he had lived in China for 10 years, that gave him credibility. I don’t think that’s totally to be dismissed. I may have thought the same thing when I had lived in Japan for 10 years. I would have been wrong though. Think about everything that has happened where you are in 10 years. Does that really constitute a big enough window to draw conclusions?
Also, looking thru other videos, I saw this one
Why I left China for good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWgqdfAomVI
In addition, this video notes that the other podcasts are all linked to each other and a quick trawl indicates that they are trying to set up a youtube video empire. Nothing wrong with that, I wish I had gotten in on that earlier. But when someone is trying to set up a source of income from what they are posting on youtube, you have to wonder how that is influencing them and their content.
While I don’t have others to recommend, I don’t really think you are going to be getting a multiplicity of views by watching these channels.
Like I said, I don’t want to crap on the channels, he’s got some interesting stuff and I’m sure he’s got great anecdotes. But his ultimate purpose is not to inform you, it is to get you to click on his videos. I don’t think he will do it by telling complete fabrications, but how much will he shade things?
If you are watching him because you have a deep and abiding interest in China, I’d definitely suggest branching out. If you are watching them so as to get nuggets for libertarian arguments, you are going to have to find something that goes deeper.
Charles, thanks for the links, hope this isn’t too harsh, but here goes.
I started out with serpentza. I don’t think he’s totally wrong, but he’s definitely coming from this with an angle. You go to the youtube page and you are greeted with ‘The Original Chinese vlogger’ and videos titled (and these are the ones that I saw, I don’t know if they are sensitive to any algorithms)
-China’s Ridiculous Online SCAMS Targeting YOU!
-The 5 Most Illegal Things I Did in China
-China’s Internal Passport System – Country Folk Can’t Enter the Cities
-Why are Chinese Schoolgirls doing this?
-I was a Bodyguard for a Chinese Serial Rapist
I wasn’t going to dismiss him just because he wants the clicks though, so I went to
China v. Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVMbp5-bJAM
because I figured I’d be better able to evaluate things.
It’s fine as far as it goes, his Chinese seems quite relaxed and he speaks some Japanese. But I kind of balked when he argued that because he had lived in China for 10 years, that gave him credibility. I don’t think that’s totally to be dismissed. I may have thought the same thing when I had lived in Japan for 10 years. I would have been wrong though. Think about everything that has happened where you are in 10 years. Does that really constitute a big enough window to draw conclusions?
Also, looking thru other videos, I saw this one
Why I left China for good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWgqdfAomVI
In addition, this video notes that the other podcasts are all linked to each other and a quick trawl indicates that they are trying to set up a youtube video empire. Nothing wrong with that, I wish I had gotten in on that earlier. But when someone is trying to set up a source of income from what they are posting on youtube, you have to wonder how that is influencing them and their content.
While I don’t have others to recommend, I don’t really think you are going to be getting a multiplicity of views by watching these channels.
Like I said, I don’t want to crap on the channels, he’s got some interesting stuff and I’m sure he’s got great anecdotes. But his ultimate purpose is not to inform you, it is to get you to click on his videos. I don’t think he will do it by telling complete fabrications, but how much will he shade things?
If you are watching him because you have a deep and abiding interest in China, I’d definitely suggest branching out. If you are watching them so as to get nuggets for libertarian arguments, you are going to have to find something that goes deeper.
lj, some of the points you raise I’ve considered myself. His clickbait titles can be annoying. I think he sometimes exaggerates too much for effect.
He and his partner have their biases and slant on things. But of a number of “old China hand” video bloggers, they seem to be most broadly knowledgeable and honest about what they know and don’t know. I try to keep in mind that they are presenting small snapshots of a much larger reality.
While they were in China, their video blogs were largely positive. Since they left they’ve spent a lot of time being critics of the CCP. Part of is due to COVID. They had planned to be doing travel logs in Japan, South Korea, India, and other countries.
lj, some of the points you raise I’ve considered myself. His clickbait titles can be annoying. I think he sometimes exaggerates too much for effect.
He and his partner have their biases and slant on things. But of a number of “old China hand” video bloggers, they seem to be most broadly knowledgeable and honest about what they know and don’t know. I try to keep in mind that they are presenting small snapshots of a much larger reality.
While they were in China, their video blogs were largely positive. Since they left they’ve spent a lot of time being critics of the CCP. Part of is due to COVID. They had planned to be doing travel logs in Japan, South Korea, India, and other countries.
The discussion of health care in China is interesting, but I’ve forgotten why it came up.
The discussion of health care in China is interesting, but I’ve forgotten why it came up.
@russell — I can’t trace it exactly, but it was in the context of the discussion of taxes and what a national economy might accomplish under one system or another.
@russell — I can’t trace it exactly, but it was in the context of the discussion of taxes and what a national economy might accomplish under one system or another.
I can’t trace it exactly — I mean in my memory; either of us could read back through to figure it out, but I sure don’t want to. 😉
I can’t trace it exactly — I mean in my memory; either of us could read back through to figure it out, but I sure don’t want to. 😉
LOL
LOL
It was, in fact, a pretty good discussion, but once was enough….real life does call sometimes. I’m especially glad that jack lecou has been more than an occasional presence lately — I hope that isn’t temporary!!
It was, in fact, a pretty good discussion, but once was enough….real life does call sometimes. I’m especially glad that jack lecou has been more than an occasional presence lately — I hope that isn’t temporary!!
An interesting piece by Tony Blair on the future of the Labour Party and, in general, progressive policies and how they get implemented:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die
Part of the intro:
We are living through the most far-reaching upheaval since the 19th-century Industrial Revolution: a technology revolution of the internet, AI, quantum computing, extraordinary advances in genomics, bioscience, clean energy, nutrition, gaming, financial payments, satellite imagery – everything, every sphere of work, leisure and life is subject to its transformative power. The question is how it is used: to control humanity or liberate it, to provide opportunities for those presently without opportunity, or to put even more power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of those already well off.
This is the central political challenge of our time, and those who understand this revolution, show how it can be mastered for the benefit of the people, and harness it for the public good, will deservedly win power. It is a challenge tailor-made for the progressive cause. It requires active government; a commitment to social justice and equality; an overhaul of public services, particularly health and education; measures to bring the marginalised into society’s mainstream; and a new 21st-century infrastructure.
Clearly, Blair will be anathema to many here. But I have had to live through the phenomenon of far lefties of my acquaintance howling in protest as, in the aftermath of the sainted Corbyn and Labour’s subsequent defeats, the Tories dismantled many of Blair’s and Brown’s achievements. I think, as a politician who showed he had insight into the electorate and could win elections, at the very least he deserves a hearing. As Ian Leslie said on the blog where I read this:
I agree with Tony Blair’s argument in this piece but even if you don’t it must be possible to acknowledge that he is thinking and writing at a higher level of clarity and urgency than anyone else in Labour politics. I mean that less as praise for him and more as a comment on the state of the discourse. All those saying ‘go away, your time is over’ have to first make him obsolete by being better.
An interesting piece by Tony Blair on the future of the Labour Party and, in general, progressive policies and how they get implemented:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die
Part of the intro:
We are living through the most far-reaching upheaval since the 19th-century Industrial Revolution: a technology revolution of the internet, AI, quantum computing, extraordinary advances in genomics, bioscience, clean energy, nutrition, gaming, financial payments, satellite imagery – everything, every sphere of work, leisure and life is subject to its transformative power. The question is how it is used: to control humanity or liberate it, to provide opportunities for those presently without opportunity, or to put even more power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of those already well off.
This is the central political challenge of our time, and those who understand this revolution, show how it can be mastered for the benefit of the people, and harness it for the public good, will deservedly win power. It is a challenge tailor-made for the progressive cause. It requires active government; a commitment to social justice and equality; an overhaul of public services, particularly health and education; measures to bring the marginalised into society’s mainstream; and a new 21st-century infrastructure.
Clearly, Blair will be anathema to many here. But I have had to live through the phenomenon of far lefties of my acquaintance howling in protest as, in the aftermath of the sainted Corbyn and Labour’s subsequent defeats, the Tories dismantled many of Blair’s and Brown’s achievements. I think, as a politician who showed he had insight into the electorate and could win elections, at the very least he deserves a hearing. As Ian Leslie said on the blog where I read this:
I agree with Tony Blair’s argument in this piece but even if you don’t it must be possible to acknowledge that he is thinking and writing at a higher level of clarity and urgency than anyone else in Labour politics. I mean that less as praise for him and more as a comment on the state of the discourse. All those saying ‘go away, your time is over’ have to first make him obsolete by being better.
I’m especially glad that jack lecou has been more than an occasional presence lately — I hope that isn’t temporary!
Agreed.
I’m especially glad that jack lecou has been more than an occasional presence lately — I hope that isn’t temporary!
Agreed.
From my perspective, I pitched in because it was mentioned that China had universal health care and there was then a dismissal of Chinese health care. Which is pretty rich coming from anyone who has seen the system in the states. Yeah, hi tech, but delivery to everyone? don’t make me laugh.
But anyway, serpentza, like I said, interesting guy, has interesting experiences. But I’m not sure if I would say 10 years in country makes one an ‘old China hand’, though, as I said, I would have described myself as an old Japan hand after 10 years. But the 30+ years me would probably take that youngster and give him a swirly…
But his farewell to China wasn’t just COVID, it seemed a lot deeper than that, I’m sympathetic, but in that video he explains why he left South Africa. This is at 0:50
growing up in South Africa and especially the time I grew up in South Africa and all this drastic change things let’s just put it this way weren’t good for someone who looks like me so being a young white South African professional meant that the opportunities really just weren’t there
It is like Louis CK joke about how, if he had a time machine, it is great being white cause you can go back to any time. However, you don’t ever want to go forward.
This is not to suggest that he’s some sort of racist, but it seems that he’s not really adjusted himself to what the future looks like. He sounded really miffed that he was being watched and couldn’t follow the truth wherever it took him. If you think about that, that is a luxury very few ever get. And precisely why would a foreigner get that? It only got real when it was the cops checking up on _him_. So I tend to feel he may not have been able to see as clearly as one might suppose.
From my perspective, I pitched in because it was mentioned that China had universal health care and there was then a dismissal of Chinese health care. Which is pretty rich coming from anyone who has seen the system in the states. Yeah, hi tech, but delivery to everyone? don’t make me laugh.
But anyway, serpentza, like I said, interesting guy, has interesting experiences. But I’m not sure if I would say 10 years in country makes one an ‘old China hand’, though, as I said, I would have described myself as an old Japan hand after 10 years. But the 30+ years me would probably take that youngster and give him a swirly…
But his farewell to China wasn’t just COVID, it seemed a lot deeper than that, I’m sympathetic, but in that video he explains why he left South Africa. This is at 0:50
growing up in South Africa and especially the time I grew up in South Africa and all this drastic change things let’s just put it this way weren’t good for someone who looks like me so being a young white South African professional meant that the opportunities really just weren’t there
It is like Louis CK joke about how, if he had a time machine, it is great being white cause you can go back to any time. However, you don’t ever want to go forward.
This is not to suggest that he’s some sort of racist, but it seems that he’s not really adjusted himself to what the future looks like. He sounded really miffed that he was being watched and couldn’t follow the truth wherever it took him. If you think about that, that is a luxury very few ever get. And precisely why would a foreigner get that? It only got real when it was the cops checking up on _him_. So I tend to feel he may not have been able to see as clearly as one might suppose.
He sounded really miffed that he was being watched and couldn’t follow the truth wherever it took him.
Thus clearly demonstrating that he was no “old China hand”, at least as it applies to the China of today.
He sounded really miffed that he was being watched and couldn’t follow the truth wherever it took him.
Thus clearly demonstrating that he was no “old China hand”, at least as it applies to the China of today.
But his farewell to China wasn’t just COVID,
He was in China for about 15 years. His partner was there for over 10 years. They had planned to live there indefinitely. But the handwriting on the wall was beginning to look like Mao 2.0. They left before COVID. But, because of it, they’re stuck in the US talking about China when they had planned to spend the past year traveling Japan, South Korea, and India.
But his farewell to China wasn’t just COVID,
He was in China for about 15 years. His partner was there for over 10 years. They had planned to live there indefinitely. But the handwriting on the wall was beginning to look like Mao 2.0. They left before COVID. But, because of it, they’re stuck in the US talking about China when they had planned to spend the past year traveling Japan, South Korea, and India.
I did put “old China hand” in quotes. Of course, 10-15 years is not enough time to become fully immersed in a culture. But the two of them have done a much deeper dive than most ex-pats in China. They are more broadly knowledgeable of China than most Chinese. They just don’t have the depth of someone growing up in China.
I did put “old China hand” in quotes. Of course, 10-15 years is not enough time to become fully immersed in a culture. But the two of them have done a much deeper dive than most ex-pats in China. They are more broadly knowledgeable of China than most Chinese. They just don’t have the depth of someone growing up in China.
If it is true that he was “really miffed he was being watched and couldn’t follow the truth wherever it took him”, he was, in really important ways, scarcely knowledgeable about China at all.
If it is true that he was “really miffed he was being watched and couldn’t follow the truth wherever it took him”, he was, in really important ways, scarcely knowledgeable about China at all.
It was, in fact, a pretty good discussion
Agreed.
I actually couldn’t remember exactly how we got there. It seemed to start from the discussion of China as a counter-example to McK’s assertion about the impossibility of a nation making economic progress absent free markets, but then it seemed to take on a life of it’s own. Please don’t take my comment as a criticism of, or objection to, the discussion.
I was also trying to understand if Charles’ comments on the topic were meant to be a counter-argument to the idea that China has made significant economic progress in the post-Mao years. If so, I’d disagree.
Mostly it seemed like a weak basis for arguing for the superiority of our own social and economic institutions. I’d rather live here than in China (I suspect so, anyway, never having lived in China), but mostly for reasons other than the quality of the respective health care systems.
Were I the leader of, or even a resident of, a developing country looking for a model for how to raise my country out of 3rd world status, I’m not sure I’d choose the US over China at this point. As a model, that is. It’d probably be a matter of picking and choosing features of both.
And it is good to see you around the neighborhood again jack!!
It was, in fact, a pretty good discussion
Agreed.
I actually couldn’t remember exactly how we got there. It seemed to start from the discussion of China as a counter-example to McK’s assertion about the impossibility of a nation making economic progress absent free markets, but then it seemed to take on a life of it’s own. Please don’t take my comment as a criticism of, or objection to, the discussion.
I was also trying to understand if Charles’ comments on the topic were meant to be a counter-argument to the idea that China has made significant economic progress in the post-Mao years. If so, I’d disagree.
Mostly it seemed like a weak basis for arguing for the superiority of our own social and economic institutions. I’d rather live here than in China (I suspect so, anyway, never having lived in China), but mostly for reasons other than the quality of the respective health care systems.
Were I the leader of, or even a resident of, a developing country looking for a model for how to raise my country out of 3rd world status, I’m not sure I’d choose the US over China at this point. As a model, that is. It’d probably be a matter of picking and choosing features of both.
And it is good to see you around the neighborhood again jack!!
I was also trying to understand if Charles’ comments on the topic were meant to be a counter-argument to the idea that China has made significant economic progress in the post-Mao years.
In recent decades billions of people have escaped abject poverty. Most of them mainland Chinese. More recently part of the reduction in poverty has been from the CCP moving the goalposts. A five-year plan to completely eliminate poverty in China ended in 2021. And five-year plans never fail. Not any that the CCP will admit to. So there’s no point in having social programs to alleviate something that doesn’t exist.
I was also trying to understand if Charles’ comments on the topic were meant to be a counter-argument to the idea that China has made significant economic progress in the post-Mao years.
In recent decades billions of people have escaped abject poverty. Most of them mainland Chinese. More recently part of the reduction in poverty has been from the CCP moving the goalposts. A five-year plan to completely eliminate poverty in China ended in 2021. And five-year plans never fail. Not any that the CCP will admit to. So there’s no point in having social programs to alleviate something that doesn’t exist.
An article on a number of China video bloggers and their differing points of view on China. The quote is about the two I pay the most attention to.
“And YouTube has its share of unapologetic critics of China’s authorities – most notable are Winston Sterzel, a 40-year-old South African who goes by the name SerpentZA, and Matthew Tye, or Laowhy86, a 33-year-old American.
After moving to China as English teachers in the 2000s, the duo began publishing videos on benign topics such as motorcycle maintenance tips and dating and co-produced two documentaries as they traveled across northern and southern China.
But around the time that both left China in 2019, their channels took a sharp turn into outspoken criticism of the country’s government, helping drive them to the nearly 1.5 million subscribers the two collectively have today.
They use the same hyperbolic headlines that have become common across the platform’s hyper-competitive landscape: one of Sterzel’s recent videos is titled “How China is slowly KILLING us all”, which garnered nearly half a million views.
In a September 2019 video, Tye explained how his outlook had changed, describing a country facing government oppression, rising crime, and alleging that the land used for his and Sterzel’s motorcycle business was seized by the authorities.
“We are constantly labeled and attacked as ‘anti-China’, when in fact, a very large portion of our supporters and subscribers are not only Chinese people living abroad, but also mainland Chinese who thank us for criticizing the policies of the Communist Party of China,” Tye said in an emailed response to questions.”
US-China friction turns into YouTube fame (and laughs) for online influencers
An article on a number of China video bloggers and their differing points of view on China. The quote is about the two I pay the most attention to.
“And YouTube has its share of unapologetic critics of China’s authorities – most notable are Winston Sterzel, a 40-year-old South African who goes by the name SerpentZA, and Matthew Tye, or Laowhy86, a 33-year-old American.
After moving to China as English teachers in the 2000s, the duo began publishing videos on benign topics such as motorcycle maintenance tips and dating and co-produced two documentaries as they traveled across northern and southern China.
But around the time that both left China in 2019, their channels took a sharp turn into outspoken criticism of the country’s government, helping drive them to the nearly 1.5 million subscribers the two collectively have today.
They use the same hyperbolic headlines that have become common across the platform’s hyper-competitive landscape: one of Sterzel’s recent videos is titled “How China is slowly KILLING us all”, which garnered nearly half a million views.
In a September 2019 video, Tye explained how his outlook had changed, describing a country facing government oppression, rising crime, and alleging that the land used for his and Sterzel’s motorcycle business was seized by the authorities.
“We are constantly labeled and attacked as ‘anti-China’, when in fact, a very large portion of our supporters and subscribers are not only Chinese people living abroad, but also mainland Chinese who thank us for criticizing the policies of the Communist Party of China,” Tye said in an emailed response to questions.”
US-China friction turns into YouTube fame (and laughs) for online influencers
This is free streaming videos with ads of the two traveling across northern China for over a month.
“Popular Youtube vloggers, SerpentZA and Laowhy86, head to the northernmost point of China on their most grueling and punishing adventure to date.”
Conquering Northern China
This is free streaming videos with ads of the two traveling across northern China for over a month.
“Popular Youtube vloggers, SerpentZA and Laowhy86, head to the northernmost point of China on their most grueling and punishing adventure to date.”
Conquering Northern China
Were I the leader of, or even a resident of, a developing country looking for a model for how to raise my country out of 3rd world status, I’m not sure I’d choose the US over China at this point. As a model, that is. It’d probably be a matter of picking and choosing features of both.
At least as a model for the transitional period, I think the preponderance of evidence is that a US model, at least an idealized one, would be an abject disaster. Has been, over and over and over when it’s been imposed on the developing world.
The best models are probably places like Japan or Korea (or Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand to some degree…). None of those has ever been called socialist, but neither were they anything remotely like free markets.
Very broadly, industrialization was led by large corporations (zaibatsu/keiretsu/chaebols in Japan and Korea) in extremely cozy cooperation with the state (which took on industrial planning functions, and foreign exchange finance functions). This is a pattern Chalmers Johnson called the “Capitalist Developmental State”. AFAIK, it’s the only genuinely successful development model anyone’s yet observed.
And China’s ongoing experiment with ‘state capitalism’ resembles this more than anything else.
Were I the leader of, or even a resident of, a developing country looking for a model for how to raise my country out of 3rd world status, I’m not sure I’d choose the US over China at this point. As a model, that is. It’d probably be a matter of picking and choosing features of both.
At least as a model for the transitional period, I think the preponderance of evidence is that a US model, at least an idealized one, would be an abject disaster. Has been, over and over and over when it’s been imposed on the developing world.
The best models are probably places like Japan or Korea (or Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand to some degree…). None of those has ever been called socialist, but neither were they anything remotely like free markets.
Very broadly, industrialization was led by large corporations (zaibatsu/keiretsu/chaebols in Japan and Korea) in extremely cozy cooperation with the state (which took on industrial planning functions, and foreign exchange finance functions). This is a pattern Chalmers Johnson called the “Capitalist Developmental State”. AFAIK, it’s the only genuinely successful development model anyone’s yet observed.
And China’s ongoing experiment with ‘state capitalism’ resembles this more than anything else.
This study is pretty interesting, and at least partly relevant to the earlier discussion about just giving people money to live their lives, rather than threatening with the lash of destitution.
Not only more successful than the alternatives, but cheaper too.
This study is pretty interesting, and at least partly relevant to the earlier discussion about just giving people money to live their lives, rather than threatening with the lash of destitution.
Not only more successful than the alternatives, but cheaper too.
Jack, that’s a really great study. The UBI discussion has way too much pontificating about what would happen from “first principles”, and way too little actual hard data. So every little bit is a step forward.
Jack, that’s a really great study. The UBI discussion has way too much pontificating about what would happen from “first principles”, and way too little actual hard data. So every little bit is a step forward.
“Popular Youtube vloggers, SerpentZA and Laowhy86, head to the northernmost point of China on their most grueling and punishing adventure to date.”
Conquering Northern China
Unfortunately, the Roku channel is not yet available in Japan. But again, I repeat, interesting guy, interesting experiences. And the Laowhy86 as well. But I have to note that Laowhy is probably related to laowai Obviously better than someone trying to “go native”, but it just points to the fact that you are always coming from somewhere.
And I have to note, folks who would title their video ‘Conquering Northern China’ are coming from a perspective that might not leave them open to all the possibilities…
“Popular Youtube vloggers, SerpentZA and Laowhy86, head to the northernmost point of China on their most grueling and punishing adventure to date.”
Conquering Northern China
Unfortunately, the Roku channel is not yet available in Japan. But again, I repeat, interesting guy, interesting experiences. And the Laowhy86 as well. But I have to note that Laowhy is probably related to laowai Obviously better than someone trying to “go native”, but it just points to the fact that you are always coming from somewhere.
And I have to note, folks who would title their video ‘Conquering Northern China’ are coming from a perspective that might not leave them open to all the possibilities…
It’s available at Vimeo for money: $7.99. But that may not be available in Japan either.
The guys are foodies so they’ll give just about anything a try. The drone ariel footage is great.
They’ve been criticized for the titles. Includes Conquering Southern China which is available from Amazon.
It’s available at Vimeo for money: $7.99. But that may not be available in Japan either.
The guys are foodies so they’ll give just about anything a try. The drone ariel footage is great.
They’ve been criticized for the titles. Includes Conquering Southern China which is available from Amazon.
I’m not criticizing them for the titles, merely pointing out that the titles may reveal something about their way of thinking.
I’m not criticizing them for the titles, merely pointing out that the titles may reveal something about their way of thinking.
And, unlike the folks who write newspaper articles, they do write their own headlines.
And, unlike the folks who write newspaper articles, they do write their own headlines.