In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
I can't make heads or tails of that.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
I think your analogy needs work.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that.
I've already said that government is a necessary evil.
Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule.
I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do.
I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable.
Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types...
The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people.
I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought.
You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food.
Group 1:
The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions.
Group 2:
The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share.
Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian.
Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart?
The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go.
If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
According to WhiteDog's graphs there's more accumulation in Europe than the US.
Part of having a free (ish) market is that competition limits profit margins and promotes growth. Yes it allows for accumulations, but accumulation isn't a given - it's hard to do.
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
You'll have to explain the gaming sector comment.
One of the most favored sectors right now is the biotech sector which has zero interest in short term profits. The rise of private companies, private equity and some hedge funds has also emphasized long vs short term.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
Organizations can want whatever people want. As they get big the profit generally shifts to profits more, as points of agreement become fewer and fewer.
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
I don't think that's fair. Ethical concerns are often really hard to deal with. Child labor is reprehensible to people in rich world countries, but local customs may not consider it taboo. Also, you're generally dealing with different companies in different countries so your ability to demand and enforce labor practices is limited.
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
Somewhat agree. There's limits to how much you can extrapolate from a temporary deficit in demand though.
The smaller accumulation of capital in the US has NOTHING to do with the "supposed" free market in the US. Actually, it should be the opposite if you only look at the markets structures, as the US has more oligopolistic situation than Europe.
Capital in the US is lower because of two things (mainly) : you have more land and a bigger natural growth.
What do you mean by "only look at the markets structures"? Firm concentration? A lot of European countries do really well promoting small firms (Greece does well on that measure) but it's a pretty insignificant thing to measure by itself.
Europe doesn't do well creating new big firms. Small firms stay small, they don't unseat the incumbents. In the US small firms can grow into big ones, which is hugely important for job growth and productivity improvement.
Big firms are not efficient job wise, but really it is a little off from the subject.
Market structure = the state of the offer and demand. When the number of firm competing on a market is so small that you can count them with a hand, then it's not a "competitive" market (at least, not in regard to the economic theory), and most important markets are this way (in the US, but also in Europe).
I've already said that government is a necessary evil.
Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule.
I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do.
I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable.
Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types...
The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people.
I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought.
You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food.
Group 1:
The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions.
Group 2:
The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share.
Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian.
Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart?
The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go.
If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
According to WhiteDog's graphs there's more accumulation in Europe than the US.
Part of having a free (ish) market is that competition limits profit margins and promotes growth. Yes it allows for accumulations, but accumulation isn't a given - it's hard to do.
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
You'll have to explain the gaming sector comment.
One of the most favored sectors right now is the biotech sector which has zero interest in short term profits. The rise of private companies, private equity and some hedge funds has also emphasized long vs short term.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
Organizations can want whatever people want. As they get big the profit generally shifts to profits more, as points of agreement become fewer and fewer.
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
I don't think that's fair. Ethical concerns are often really hard to deal with. Child labor is reprehensible to people in rich world countries, but local customs may not consider it taboo. Also, you're generally dealing with different companies in different countries so your ability to demand and enforce labor practices is limited.
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
Somewhat agree. There's limits to how much you can extrapolate from a temporary deficit in demand though.
The smaller accumulation of capital in the US has NOTHING to do with the "supposed" free market in the US. Actually, it should be the opposite if you only look at the markets structures, as the US has more oligopolistic situation than Europe.
Capital in the US is lower because of two things (mainly) : you have more land and a bigger natural growth.
What do you mean by "only look at the markets structures"? Firm concentration? A lot of European countries do really well promoting small firms (Greece does well on that measure) but it's a pretty insignificant thing to measure by itself.
Europe doesn't do well creating new big firms. Small firms stay small, they don't unseat the incumbents. In the US small firms can grow into big ones, which is hugely important for job growth and productivity improvement.
Big firms are not efficient job wise, but really it is a little off from the subject.
Market structure = the state of the offer and demand. When the number of firm competing on a market is so small that you can count them with a hand, then it's not a "competitive" market (at least, not in regard to the economic theory), and most important markets are this way (in the US, but also in Europe).
Not sure what you mean by "efficient job wise". Efficiency in what sense? Job growth or productivity per worker?
Yeah that's what I thought you meant by market structure. It varies a lot by industry. And like I said, by itself it isn't terribly meaningful.
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
I can't make heads or tails of that.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
You knew exactly what he meant!
Ok you're still missing it. I said conservatives not religious. I think you are highlighting how Christian and Capitalism/Conservative/Republican thought are commonly incongruous.
"If food was just there" Was the earth not just there? The plates renew on their own schedule which the earth does. We could manipulate the process to be more efficient (at least apparently) or to get the cycles faster (agriculture).
The leader isn't a government he is a corporation silly.
What you actually see in group 2 is free market capitalism, and it's associated distribution. Obviously it's simplified that's kind of the point.
I could go on but you can just see it how you want.
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
I can't make heads or tails of that.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
I think your analogy needs work.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
You knew exactly what he meant!
Ok you're still missing it. I said conservatives not religious. I think you are highlighting how Christian and Capitalism/Conservative/Republican thought are commonly incongruous.
"If food was just there" Was the earth not just there? The plates renew on their own schedule which the earth does. We could manipulate the process to be more efficient (at least apparently) or to get the cycles faster (agriculture).
The leader isn't a government he is a corporation silly.
What you actually see in group 2 is free market capitalism, and it's associated distribution. Obviously it's simplified that's kind of the point.
I could go on but you can just see it how you want.
I know you meant conservatives in general, I was taking us back to the earlier discussion I said that I think most people would choose group 1 in the given context...
Perhaps you should not have given the shortened version. Edit: I'm not asking for the long one.
If the second was free market capitalism, then someone would have prepared the food, and others would pay for the food. It would not be like your scenario.
By asserting that it's just there for the taking and is self-renewing leaves out reality too much to be useful, in my opinion. Since that's NOT the way it is, why speak as if it is? When the pilgrims arrived to America (as close a situation to what you propose as I can think of) they quickly discovered that personal ownership is vital. They had limited resources, but when people didn't work for their own benefit for those resources, they started to run out! So in a vacuum your idea sounds fine, but I find it too detached to be that useful.
On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types...
The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people.
I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought.
You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food.
Group 1:
The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions.
Group 2:
The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share.
Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian.
Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart?
The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go.
If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
According to WhiteDog's graphs there's more accumulation in Europe than the US.
Part of having a free (ish) market is that competition limits profit margins and promotes growth. Yes it allows for accumulations, but accumulation isn't a given - it's hard to do.
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
You'll have to explain the gaming sector comment.
One of the most favored sectors right now is the biotech sector which has zero interest in short term profits. The rise of private companies, private equity and some hedge funds has also emphasized long vs short term.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
Organizations can want whatever people want. As they get big the profit generally shifts to profits more, as points of agreement become fewer and fewer.
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
I don't think that's fair. Ethical concerns are often really hard to deal with. Child labor is reprehensible to people in rich world countries, but local customs may not consider it taboo. Also, you're generally dealing with different companies in different countries so your ability to demand and enforce labor practices is limited.
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
Somewhat agree. There's limits to how much you can extrapolate from a temporary deficit in demand though.
The smaller accumulation of capital in the US has NOTHING to do with the "supposed" free market in the US. Actually, it should be the opposite if you only look at the markets structures, as the US has more oligopolistic situation than Europe.
Capital in the US is lower because of two things (mainly) : you have more land and a bigger natural growth.
What do you mean by "only look at the markets structures"? Firm concentration? A lot of European countries do really well promoting small firms (Greece does well on that measure) but it's a pretty insignificant thing to measure by itself.
Europe doesn't do well creating new big firms. Small firms stay small, they don't unseat the incumbents. In the US small firms can grow into big ones, which is hugely important for job growth and productivity improvement.
Big firms are not efficient job wise, but really it is a little off from the subject.
Market structure = the state of the offer and demand. When the number of firm competing on a market is so small that you can count them with a hand, then it's not a "competitive" market (at least, not in regard to the economic theory), and most important markets are this way (in the US, but also in Europe).
Not sure what you mean by "efficient job wise". Efficiency in what sense? Job growth or productivity per worker?
Yeah that's what I thought you meant by market structure. It varies a lot by industry. And like I said, by itself it isn't terribly meaningful.
Job per unit produced. To say it in another way : they are more productive per workers, and thus need less worker (plus they have the finance to invest more on capital and thus substitute labor with it).
Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart?
The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go.
If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
According to WhiteDog's graphs there's more accumulation in Europe than the US.
Part of having a free (ish) market is that competition limits profit margins and promotes growth. Yes it allows for accumulations, but accumulation isn't a given - it's hard to do.
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
You'll have to explain the gaming sector comment.
One of the most favored sectors right now is the biotech sector which has zero interest in short term profits. The rise of private companies, private equity and some hedge funds has also emphasized long vs short term.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
Organizations can want whatever people want. As they get big the profit generally shifts to profits more, as points of agreement become fewer and fewer.
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
I don't think that's fair. Ethical concerns are often really hard to deal with. Child labor is reprehensible to people in rich world countries, but local customs may not consider it taboo. Also, you're generally dealing with different companies in different countries so your ability to demand and enforce labor practices is limited.
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
Somewhat agree. There's limits to how much you can extrapolate from a temporary deficit in demand though.
The smaller accumulation of capital in the US has NOTHING to do with the "supposed" free market in the US. Actually, it should be the opposite if you only look at the markets structures, as the US has more oligopolistic situation than Europe.
Capital in the US is lower because of two things (mainly) : you have more land and a bigger natural growth.
What do you mean by "only look at the markets structures"? Firm concentration? A lot of European countries do really well promoting small firms (Greece does well on that measure) but it's a pretty insignificant thing to measure by itself.
Europe doesn't do well creating new big firms. Small firms stay small, they don't unseat the incumbents. In the US small firms can grow into big ones, which is hugely important for job growth and productivity improvement.
Big firms are not efficient job wise, but really it is a little off from the subject.
Market structure = the state of the offer and demand. When the number of firm competing on a market is so small that you can count them with a hand, then it's not a "competitive" market (at least, not in regard to the economic theory), and most important markets are this way (in the US, but also in Europe).
Not sure what you mean by "efficient job wise". Efficiency in what sense? Job growth or productivity per worker?
Yeah that's what I thought you meant by market structure. It varies a lot by industry. And like I said, by itself it isn't terribly meaningful.
Job per unit produced. To say it in another way : they are more productive per workers, and thus need less worker (plus they have the finance to invest more on capital and thus substitute labor with it).
And yes it is meaningful.
Yeah they're more productive.. and that's a good thing.
Meaningful in what way? It's a useful data point, but by itself it doesn't tell you much. Firm concentration varies hugely by industry, so country comparisons aren't always useful as it depends a lot on the industrial mix of an economy. Moreover, smaller isn't strictly better. If you're just referencing how competitive an industry is, it depends on number of firms but other factors as well. Having many small firms in their own protected market doesn't make an industry competitive.
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
I can't make heads or tails of that.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
I think your analogy needs work.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
You knew exactly what he meant!
Ok you're still missing it. I said conservatives not religious. I think you are highlighting how Christian and Capitalism/Conservative/Republican thought are commonly incongruous.
"If food was just there" Was the earth not just there? The plates renew on their own schedule which the earth does. We could manipulate the process to be more efficient (at least apparently) or to get the cycles faster (agriculture).
The leader isn't a government he is a corporation silly.
What you actually see in group 2 is free market capitalism, and it's associated distribution. Obviously it's simplified that's kind of the point.
I could go on but you can just see it how you want.
I know you meant conservatives in general, I was taking us back to the earlier discussion I said that I think most people would choose group 1 in the given context...
Perhaps you should not have given the shortened version. Edit: I'm not asking for the long one.
If the second was free market capitalism, then someone would have prepared the food, and others would pay for the food. It would not be like your scenario.
By asserting that it's just there for the taking and is self-renewing leaves out reality too much to be useful, in my opinion. Since that's NOT the way it is, why speak as if it is? When the pilgrims arrived to America (as close a situation to what you propose as I can think of) they quickly discovered that personal ownership is vital. They had limited resources, but when people didn't work for their own benefit for those resources, they started to run out! So in a vacuum your idea sounds fine, but I find it too detached to be that useful.
Roflao really? The pilgrims are the best example of humans on a self renewing planet, capable of sustaining themselves, and countless generations that you could come up with?
You miss the point entirely. Clearly we have built a society around the group 2 model regardless of who you want to say it represents. Essentially conservatives argue that since group 2 is "the way it is" group 1's model is not feasible. They dismiss that at one point things weren't so (partially because significant portions are skeptical of an earth older than 10,000 y.o. or that humans evolved from another species).
There were more (Group 1) communal societies and there were more (Group 2)capitalistic societies long before the terms we use to describe the phenomena came about. The difference between the two groups is that one thinks they are separate from and they can own the planet and the other realizes they are a part of it, and it a larger system, and so on.
And my larger point is that the disagreement is larger than policy or even the surface level philosophy that often surrounds it. At a very core level there is a disagreement about where resources come from and who if anyone should 'own' them and what is a sensible distribution. (Although most Americans are unaware of just how skewed wealth distribution is and most would advocate for a far more communal distribution than we currently have if they weren't so brainwashed.)
There is no debating that we do live in an ownership society, However there is plenty of debate about whether it always has been or has to be that way or whether human nature creates insurmountable obstacles to certain social organizations.
On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote: [quote] So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go.
If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
According to WhiteDog's graphs there's more accumulation in Europe than the US.
Part of having a free (ish) market is that competition limits profit margins and promotes growth. Yes it allows for accumulations, but accumulation isn't a given - it's hard to do.
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
You'll have to explain the gaming sector comment.
One of the most favored sectors right now is the biotech sector which has zero interest in short term profits. The rise of private companies, private equity and some hedge funds has also emphasized long vs short term.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
Organizations can want whatever people want. As they get big the profit generally shifts to profits more, as points of agreement become fewer and fewer.
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
I don't think that's fair. Ethical concerns are often really hard to deal with. Child labor is reprehensible to people in rich world countries, but local customs may not consider it taboo. Also, you're generally dealing with different companies in different countries so your ability to demand and enforce labor practices is limited.
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
Somewhat agree. There's limits to how much you can extrapolate from a temporary deficit in demand though.
The smaller accumulation of capital in the US has NOTHING to do with the "supposed" free market in the US. Actually, it should be the opposite if you only look at the markets structures, as the US has more oligopolistic situation than Europe.
Capital in the US is lower because of two things (mainly) : you have more land and a bigger natural growth.
What do you mean by "only look at the markets structures"? Firm concentration? A lot of European countries do really well promoting small firms (Greece does well on that measure) but it's a pretty insignificant thing to measure by itself.
Europe doesn't do well creating new big firms. Small firms stay small, they don't unseat the incumbents. In the US small firms can grow into big ones, which is hugely important for job growth and productivity improvement.
Big firms are not efficient job wise, but really it is a little off from the subject.
Market structure = the state of the offer and demand. When the number of firm competing on a market is so small that you can count them with a hand, then it's not a "competitive" market (at least, not in regard to the economic theory), and most important markets are this way (in the US, but also in Europe).
Not sure what you mean by "efficient job wise". Efficiency in what sense? Job growth or productivity per worker?
Yeah that's what I thought you meant by market structure. It varies a lot by industry. And like I said, by itself it isn't terribly meaningful.
Job per unit produced. To say it in another way : they are more productive per workers, and thus need less worker (plus they have the finance to invest more on capital and thus substitute labor with it).
And yes it is meaningful.
Yeah they're more productive.. and that's a good thing.
Meaningful in what way? It's a useful data point, but by itself it doesn't tell you much. Firm concentration varies hugely by industry, so country comparisons aren't always useful as it depends a lot on the industrial mix of an economy. Moreover, smaller isn't strictly better. If you're just referencing how competitive an industry is, it depends on number of firms but other factors as well. Having many small firms in their own protected market doesn't make an industry competitive.
You're always off I don't really get your thought process.
You said big firms were better for job growth ; they are not, in fact they tend to create less job per unit produced. You said the "free market" in the US was keeping the capital at bay ; in fact market in the US are far from pure and perfect competition and far from being "better" then european markets.
What baseless assertions? And why should I care what Nyxisto says, I just want you to admit you were wrong. This is personal now!
You said it was weaker evidence, not weaker "experience", but anecdotes simply are not evidence. Are you trying to shift the argument from 'evidence' to 'experience'? They have their place. In your house, talking to your friends, relaxing and having fun. Still doesn't make them pass the test for evidence. Again, you keep going on and on trying to prove anecdotes are actually evidence for an argument, when they simply are not. Have you never done any science?
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.
I can't make heads or tails of that.
And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
I think your analogy needs work.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
You knew exactly what he meant!
Ok you're still missing it. I said conservatives not religious. I think you are highlighting how Christian and Capitalism/Conservative/Republican thought are commonly incongruous.
"If food was just there" Was the earth not just there? The plates renew on their own schedule which the earth does. We could manipulate the process to be more efficient (at least apparently) or to get the cycles faster (agriculture).
The leader isn't a government he is a corporation silly.
What you actually see in group 2 is free market capitalism, and it's associated distribution. Obviously it's simplified that's kind of the point.
I could go on but you can just see it how you want.
I know you meant conservatives in general, I was taking us back to the earlier discussion I said that I think most people would choose group 1 in the given context...
Perhaps you should not have given the shortened version. Edit: I'm not asking for the long one.
If the second was free market capitalism, then someone would have prepared the food, and others would pay for the food. It would not be like your scenario.
By asserting that it's just there for the taking and is self-renewing leaves out reality too much to be useful, in my opinion. Since that's NOT the way it is, why speak as if it is? When the pilgrims arrived to America (as close a situation to what you propose as I can think of) they quickly discovered that personal ownership is vital. They had limited resources, but when people didn't work for their own benefit for those resources, they started to run out! So in a vacuum your idea sounds fine, but I find it too detached to be that useful.
Roflao really? The pilgrims are the best example of humans on a self renewing planet, capable of sustaining themselves, and countless generations that you could come up with?
You miss the point entirely. Clearly we have built a society around the group 2 model regardless of who you want to say it represents. Essentially conservatives argue that since group 2 is "the way it is" group 1's model is not feasible. They dismiss that at one point things weren't so (partially because significant portions are skeptical of an earth older than 10,000 y.o. or that humans evolved from another species).
There were more (Group 1) communal societies and there were more (Group 2)capitalistic societies long before the terms we use to describe the phenomena came about. The difference between the two groups is that one thinks they are separate from and they can own the planet and the other realizes they are a part of it, and it a larger system, and so on.
And my larger point is that the disagreement is larger than policy or even the surface level philosophy that often surrounds it. At a very core level there is a disagreement about where resources come from and who if anyone should 'own' them and what is a sensible distribution. (Although most Americans are unaware of just how skewed wealth distribution is and most would advocate for a far more communal distribution than we currently have if they weren't so brainwashed.)
There is no debating that we do live in an ownership society, However there is plenty of debate about whether it always has been or has to be that way or whether human nature creates insurmountable obstacles to certain social organizations.
My point was that I don't find your analogy useful. I don't recall denying that we live in a society that values ownership, but that has always been the case- though you might find rare exceptions that exist for short periods of time and in very small numbers
. Humans want to own things, so they always develop in a such a way that "wealth" is concentrated. I see no reason to value scenario one when everyone can live improved lives by accumulating wealth. I do not value the earth above people- the earth sits here, and we can use it. What you seem to put up as some ideal society is not possible, and I would contend it would be worse than other alternatives.
The end point is that the system should try to use the natural human inclinations instead of trying to suppress them.
What baseless assertions? And why should I care what Nyxisto says, I just want you to admit you were wrong. This is personal now!
You said it was weaker evidence, not weaker "experience", but anecdotes simply are not evidence. Are you trying to shift the argument from 'evidence' to 'experience'? They have their place. In your house, talking to your friends, relaxing and having fun. Still doesn't make them pass the test for evidence. Again, you keep going on and on trying to prove anecdotes are actually evidence for an argument, when they simply are not. Have you never done any science?
The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV.
No matter how many times you are told this is false, you continue to say it.
"have you ever done science?" That's a great question, cause I'm actually in a science major!
But to the relevant point: I said anecdotes are better evidence than nothing. This is true. It's a high act of snobbery to reject something like that just because he didn't give a graph. He responded appropriately in my mind. Nyxisto provided zero evidence, so DEB provided a counter-example, as well as making an assertion that (at least I thought) was relatively well known.
I didn't deny anything, nor did I say he posted some study. Like testimony in a court room, where people and testify on the character of a person, you can use anecdotes. And when you did ask for proof, I provided some. Your response? "This just shows your bias." You are predisposed to reject anything that you FEEL is wrong- so don't lecture me on evidence.
So in terms of evidence: Me- one citation.
You: Zero citations.
I'm amazed you could get so angry over such a topic, especially when what he said later turned out to be true.
On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
According to WhiteDog's graphs there's more accumulation in Europe than the US.
Part of having a free (ish) market is that competition limits profit margins and promotes growth. Yes it allows for accumulations, but accumulation isn't a given - it's hard to do.
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
You'll have to explain the gaming sector comment.
One of the most favored sectors right now is the biotech sector which has zero interest in short term profits. The rise of private companies, private equity and some hedge funds has also emphasized long vs short term.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
Organizations can want whatever people want. As they get big the profit generally shifts to profits more, as points of agreement become fewer and fewer.
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
I don't think that's fair. Ethical concerns are often really hard to deal with. Child labor is reprehensible to people in rich world countries, but local customs may not consider it taboo. Also, you're generally dealing with different companies in different countries so your ability to demand and enforce labor practices is limited.
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
Somewhat agree. There's limits to how much you can extrapolate from a temporary deficit in demand though.
The smaller accumulation of capital in the US has NOTHING to do with the "supposed" free market in the US. Actually, it should be the opposite if you only look at the markets structures, as the US has more oligopolistic situation than Europe.
Capital in the US is lower because of two things (mainly) : you have more land and a bigger natural growth.
What do you mean by "only look at the markets structures"? Firm concentration? A lot of European countries do really well promoting small firms (Greece does well on that measure) but it's a pretty insignificant thing to measure by itself.
Europe doesn't do well creating new big firms. Small firms stay small, they don't unseat the incumbents. In the US small firms can grow into big ones, which is hugely important for job growth and productivity improvement.
Big firms are not efficient job wise, but really it is a little off from the subject.
Market structure = the state of the offer and demand. When the number of firm competing on a market is so small that you can count them with a hand, then it's not a "competitive" market (at least, not in regard to the economic theory), and most important markets are this way (in the US, but also in Europe).
Not sure what you mean by "efficient job wise". Efficiency in what sense? Job growth or productivity per worker?
Yeah that's what I thought you meant by market structure. It varies a lot by industry. And like I said, by itself it isn't terribly meaningful.
Job per unit produced. To say it in another way : they are more productive per workers, and thus need less worker (plus they have the finance to invest more on capital and thus substitute labor with it).
And yes it is meaningful.
Yeah they're more productive.. and that's a good thing.
Meaningful in what way? It's a useful data point, but by itself it doesn't tell you much. Firm concentration varies hugely by industry, so country comparisons aren't always useful as it depends a lot on the industrial mix of an economy. Moreover, smaller isn't strictly better. If you're just referencing how competitive an industry is, it depends on number of firms but other factors as well. Having many small firms in their own protected market doesn't make an industry competitive.
You're always off I don't really get your thought process.
You said big firms were better for job growth ; they are not, in fact they tend to create less job per unit produced. You said the "free market" in the US was keeping the capital at bay ; in fact market in the US are far from pure and perfect competition and far from being "better" then european markets.
I didn't say that big firms were better for job growth. What's good for job growth is small firms growing into large firms. That's different from small firms staying small, or big firms staying big.
What I said was that pursuing a free market promotes growth and limits profits through competition, which doesn't run counter to your r > g paradigm, assuming it actually happens. As for the competitiveness of the US vs European domestic markets, you'll need to cite more than average firm size.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) apologized Saturday for using the term "occupied territories" at an event hosted by billionaire GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, CNN and Politico report.
Andy Abboud, the senior vice president of Adelson's Las Vegas Sands Corp., told CNN that Christie later apologized for using the controversial term during a private meeting with the megadonor. According to Abboud, Christie said he "misspoke" during his Saturday speech and that he doesn't "believe that."
Politico offered similar details on the meeting:
The source told POLITICO that Christie “clarified in the strongest terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement of policy.”
Instead, the source said, Christie made clear “that he misspoke when he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”
Adelson was reportedly satisfied with Christie's apology.
Covering up for Israel's actions doesn't really seem like just a republican thing to me. To my eye it's as much democrat as republican; and sadly far too common. The whole matter could be settled quite quickly otherwise.
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
I think your analogy needs work.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
You knew exactly what he meant!
Ok you're still missing it. I said conservatives not religious. I think you are highlighting how Christian and Capitalism/Conservative/Republican thought are commonly incongruous.
"If food was just there" Was the earth not just there? The plates renew on their own schedule which the earth does. We could manipulate the process to be more efficient (at least apparently) or to get the cycles faster (agriculture).
The leader isn't a government he is a corporation silly.
What you actually see in group 2 is free market capitalism, and it's associated distribution. Obviously it's simplified that's kind of the point.
I could go on but you can just see it how you want.
I know you meant conservatives in general, I was taking us back to the earlier discussion I said that I think most people would choose group 1 in the given context...
Perhaps you should not have given the shortened version. Edit: I'm not asking for the long one.
If the second was free market capitalism, then someone would have prepared the food, and others would pay for the food. It would not be like your scenario.
By asserting that it's just there for the taking and is self-renewing leaves out reality too much to be useful, in my opinion. Since that's NOT the way it is, why speak as if it is? When the pilgrims arrived to America (as close a situation to what you propose as I can think of) they quickly discovered that personal ownership is vital. They had limited resources, but when people didn't work for their own benefit for those resources, they started to run out! So in a vacuum your idea sounds fine, but I find it too detached to be that useful.
Roflao really? The pilgrims are the best example of humans on a self renewing planet, capable of sustaining themselves, and countless generations that you could come up with?
You miss the point entirely. Clearly we have built a society around the group 2 model regardless of who you want to say it represents. Essentially conservatives argue that since group 2 is "the way it is" group 1's model is not feasible. They dismiss that at one point things weren't so (partially because significant portions are skeptical of an earth older than 10,000 y.o. or that humans evolved from another species).
There were more (Group 1) communal societies and there were more (Group 2)capitalistic societies long before the terms we use to describe the phenomena came about. The difference between the two groups is that one thinks they are separate from and they can own the planet and the other realizes they are a part of it, and it a larger system, and so on.
And my larger point is that the disagreement is larger than policy or even the surface level philosophy that often surrounds it. At a very core level there is a disagreement about where resources come from and who if anyone should 'own' them and what is a sensible distribution. (Although most Americans are unaware of just how skewed wealth distribution is and most would advocate for a far more communal distribution than we currently have if they weren't so brainwashed.)
There is no debating that we do live in an ownership society, However there is plenty of debate about whether it always has been or has to be that way or whether human nature creates insurmountable obstacles to certain social organizations.
My point was that I don't find your analogy useful. I don't recall denying that we live in a society that values ownership, but that has always been the case- though you might find rare exceptions that exist for short periods of time and in very small numbers
. Humans want to own things, so they always develop in a such a way that "wealth" is concentrated. I see no reason to value scenario one when everyone can live improved lives by accumulating wealth. I do not value the earth above people- the earth sits here, and we can use it. What you seem to put up as some ideal society is not possible, and I would contend it would be worse than other alternatives.
The end point is that the system should try to use the natural human inclinations instead of trying to suppress them.
What baseless assertions? And why should I care what Nyxisto says, I just want you to admit you were wrong. This is personal now!
You said it was weaker evidence, not weaker "experience", but anecdotes simply are not evidence. Are you trying to shift the argument from 'evidence' to 'experience'? They have their place. In your house, talking to your friends, relaxing and having fun. Still doesn't make them pass the test for evidence. Again, you keep going on and on trying to prove anecdotes are actually evidence for an argument, when they simply are not. Have you never done any science?
The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV.
No matter how many times you are told this is false, you continue to say it.
"have you ever done science?" That's a great question, cause I'm actually in a science major!
But to the relevant point: I said anecdotes are better evidence than nothing. This is true. It's a high act of snobbery to reject something like that just because he didn't give a graph. He responded appropriately in my mind. Nyxisto provided zero evidence, so DEB provided a counter-example, as well as making an assertion that (at least I thought) was relatively well known.
I didn't deny anything, nor did I say he posted some study. Like testimony in a court room, where people and testify on the character of a person, you can use anecdotes. And when you did ask for proof, I provided some. Your response? "This just shows your bias." You are predisposed to reject anything that you FEEL is wrong- so don't lecture me on evidence.
So in terms of evidence: Me- one citation.
You: Zero citations.
I'm amazed you could get so angry over such a topic, especially when what he said later turned out to be true.
That Forbes article you posted and its criticism are complete bullshit. It's a two part argument 1) wealth inequality isn't really that bad 2) let me play with the numbers to make it look comparatively less bad than it was originally presented.
Those numbers are complete bullshit from the start. Why doesn't he include the value of all the information on the internet, freely accessible at a public library, while he's at it? One problem is that he counts food stamp income and education distributed in the future as a current asset. This should raise eyebrows. But the more fundamental flaw is that NONE of the resources he lists are capital because NONE can be invested and provide a return on investment. Those things aren't money and can't be counted as such. He makes a fundamental error from the get go and compounds it with spurious calculations. He's a fraud.
On March 30 2014 18:55 GreenHorizons wrote: You missed the analogy entirely but it could of been more clear I just jotted down a short version without the explanation but I doubt you're sincerely interested in understanding it anyway based off of your response.
? It's not as if some mystical government hand comes in and does it. It's people making choices and taking actions that result in whatever the government does. People talk about government like it's automated robots that steal land, crush corporations, kill babies, etc... like there aren't humans making decisions up and down the chain to legislate or not, enforce or not, support or not etc...
Government isn't the problem people are the problem.
Blaming a "Government" boogie man for oppressing people or "stomping on rights" is like blaming guns for killing people, or the internet for making people dumb.
How about people start taking some personal responsibility for government instead of blaming the tool?
You know what they say... "A poor craftsman always blames his tools"
I didn't miss the point. You were either attacking conservatives as heartless, merit driven machines or you were simply misrepresenting their view on things.
I should have clarified what I meant by the "justify your existence" comment. In the 20th century many liberals were of this idea, from academics to G.B. Shaw. Also one of the mods in here was talking about rationing medicine and having the NICE decide who should get what. I've never heard a conservative say that everyone should have to prove themselves to anyone else.
Government is people, but with far more power. I do separate it from a society in general. This is another one of the mistakes liberals make- they try and intertwine the two, but it seems clear to me that they are not the same.
Of course you can blame the people for voting for this government- but that doesn't excuse the power hungry, either.
So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state).
And they have always failed. The reason is that to accomplish both goals, government must grow, and when it does it stomps all over people. It's idealism to think otherwise.
I'm of the opinion that government will always grow, but it's madness to embrace it.
A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes.
That's false, but ok. You can ask any of the conservatives in the thread, so I don't know where you got that. unless we are using a more classical definition of the word..
Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy).
That should NOT be it's job, because it will fail. When the result of their social experiments and massive intervention come to bear they are shown to be failures. We see this on a small scale now- places like Detroit.
Liberals want you to justify your existence? I don't see that at all. Your american liberal typically believes in equal rights for all and even by your stereotypes you should believe liberals in fact don't want people to justify their existence because they want welfare/healthcare for everyone. The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV. The laissez-faire approach entails more of the need to justify oneself in every way, the welfare-liberal one assumes everyone has a right to their basic life standard.
I was talking more about the academics. The general public also wants to get rid of the debt but can't name a single government program they would like to cut.
The conservative view is not to let people die in the streets, I already explained this. You free people and A) make it easier for them to help themselves and B) easier for others to help them (by letting them keep more of what's theirs). It's not noble or virtuous to bankrupt a system "for the poor" and make everyone poor.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
You did clearly miss the point. It refers to earth being the food so no one 'made it' and so on. I can't say I'm surprised.
And on regulation, really Johnny? lol...
That post pre-edit didn't have a single reference to "the earth." You said "I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought."
So you did NOT reference the earth. Nor did you imply that the earth "set the table," if you will.
DEB in the first sentence said conservatives volunteer (and donate) more than liberals. Cons and religious are not the same group of people.
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I just want some decency for once, that someone on the internet will admit they were wrong. I just want you to admit that there wasn't evidence in his post...I mean it's really simple. I'm actually intrigued as to how long you're willing to drag this out and how far you'll go to avoid saying you were wrong. You even, in a way, admitted you were wrong (implicitly) by having to drag out some study you found.
Anecdotes are evidence, just weaker evidence- you should know this. I for one can say that his anecdote is strikingly similar to what is true in my own city. So what DEB said was "better" than the complete(ly wrong) guess of Nyxisto.
Not every truth is expressible as a data point.
I agree that the groups are not the exact same, but they overlap heavily. I thought this was well known. And give the context of the post DEB was responding to, it seem rather obvious what he was saying, but I won't try to speak for him. I can only give my interpretation, which is based on the context of the conversation.
You are free to nitpick for the sake of argument and ignore what he was actually trying to say, but that's the dishonest part.
Kettle meet pot... I said it was shortened and could of been more clear. when I share the analogy with less conservative people they immediately see the plates as earth it's usually the more conservative people that take your interpretation.
But now that you know, does that change your understanding of the analogy?
I think we have just learned that your analogy is something of a litmus test, and is really only useful as such.
I think see your point, but I disagree with it still. Let's say I accept this premise of highly limited resources.
Your presentation of conservatives is still incorrect.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1.
Nope. If they were religious they would certainly be part of group one, and I dare say most people would be a part of group one. If food was just THERE and there were only 9 plates and there were no other resources, than I think they would share, in a small group.
Besides, group two has more of a "government" anyway! Group one is a group of people who agree to act a particular way freely. Group two has some "leader" that distributes the food.
I think your analogy needs work.
Why should I think anecdotes are evidence? Go to school, write a research paper using anecdotes. You'll get laughed at, and for good reason. Your personal stories are not objective, they are not evidence, but subjective experiences. I get it, your experience is true for you, and you find a similarity within your own bubble. That's great kid, but if you want to talk about evidence you need to at least cite something (hopefully scientific).
Also, why would I ignore the blatant flaw in his post (no evidence) and simply accept what he's 'trying to say'? There's only dishonesty in that. I mostly care about you admitting you were wrong and seeing how far you'll twist your standards of evidence to avoid being embarrassed.
Anecdotes have their place. I said it was weaker experience. Like eyewitness testimony vs security tape footage. I love how you will discount ALL anecdotes but you have no problem with yourself or anyone else making baseless assertions about those who disagree with you.
I agree, he should have started off in big, bold letters "CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES." Because it wasn't obvious after the first 2 sentences what he was talking about, or who Nyxisto was talking about. maybe you should criticize him too for not clarifying that he meant "christian conservative."
You knew exactly what he meant!
Ok you're still missing it. I said conservatives not religious. I think you are highlighting how Christian and Capitalism/Conservative/Republican thought are commonly incongruous.
"If food was just there" Was the earth not just there? The plates renew on their own schedule which the earth does. We could manipulate the process to be more efficient (at least apparently) or to get the cycles faster (agriculture).
The leader isn't a government he is a corporation silly.
What you actually see in group 2 is free market capitalism, and it's associated distribution. Obviously it's simplified that's kind of the point.
I could go on but you can just see it how you want.
I know you meant conservatives in general, I was taking us back to the earlier discussion I said that I think most people would choose group 1 in the given context...
Perhaps you should not have given the shortened version. Edit: I'm not asking for the long one.
If the second was free market capitalism, then someone would have prepared the food, and others would pay for the food. It would not be like your scenario.
By asserting that it's just there for the taking and is self-renewing leaves out reality too much to be useful, in my opinion. Since that's NOT the way it is, why speak as if it is? When the pilgrims arrived to America (as close a situation to what you propose as I can think of) they quickly discovered that personal ownership is vital. They had limited resources, but when people didn't work for their own benefit for those resources, they started to run out! So in a vacuum your idea sounds fine, but I find it too detached to be that useful.
Roflao really? The pilgrims are the best example of humans on a self renewing planet, capable of sustaining themselves, and countless generations that you could come up with?
You miss the point entirely. Clearly we have built a society around the group 2 model regardless of who you want to say it represents. Essentially conservatives argue that since group 2 is "the way it is" group 1's model is not feasible. They dismiss that at one point things weren't so (partially because significant portions are skeptical of an earth older than 10,000 y.o. or that humans evolved from another species).
There were more (Group 1) communal societies and there were more (Group 2)capitalistic societies long before the terms we use to describe the phenomena came about. The difference between the two groups is that one thinks they are separate from and they can own the planet and the other realizes they are a part of it, and it a larger system, and so on.
And my larger point is that the disagreement is larger than policy or even the surface level philosophy that often surrounds it. At a very core level there is a disagreement about where resources come from and who if anyone should 'own' them and what is a sensible distribution. (Although most Americans are unaware of just how skewed wealth distribution is and most would advocate for a far more communal distribution than we currently have if they weren't so brainwashed.)
There is no debating that we do live in an ownership society, However there is plenty of debate about whether it always has been or has to be that way or whether human nature creates insurmountable obstacles to certain social organizations.
My point was that I don't find your analogy useful. I don't recall denying that we live in a society that values ownership, but that has always been the case- though you might find rare exceptions that exist for short periods of time and in very small numbers
. Humans want to own things, so they always develop in a such a way that "wealth" is concentrated. I see no reason to value scenario one when everyone can live improved lives by accumulating wealth. I do not value the earth above people- the earth sits here, and we can use it. What you seem to put up as some ideal society is not possible, and I would contend it would be worse than other alternatives.
The end point is that the system should try to use the natural human inclinations instead of trying to suppress them.
What baseless assertions? And why should I care what Nyxisto says, I just want you to admit you were wrong. This is personal now!
You said it was weaker evidence, not weaker "experience", but anecdotes simply are not evidence. Are you trying to shift the argument from 'evidence' to 'experience'? They have their place. In your house, talking to your friends, relaxing and having fun. Still doesn't make them pass the test for evidence. Again, you keep going on and on trying to prove anecdotes are actually evidence for an argument, when they simply are not. Have you never done any science?
The conservative on the other hand wants to take all those safety nets away, and force you to constantly be working and proving that you should still be alive and that you deserve whatever you get in life. Again, these are the typical stereotypes from a right-wing POV.
No matter how many times you are told this is false, you continue to say it.
"have you ever done science?" That's a great question, cause I'm actually in a science major!
But to the relevant point: I said anecdotes are better evidence than nothing. This is true. It's a high act of snobbery to reject something like that just because he didn't give a graph. He responded appropriately in my mind. Nyxisto provided zero evidence, so DEB provided a counter-example, as well as making an assertion that (at least I thought) was relatively well known.
I didn't deny anything, nor did I say he posted some study. Like testimony in a court room, where people and testify on the character of a person, you can use anecdotes. And when you did ask for proof, I provided some. Your response? "This just shows your bias." You are predisposed to reject anything that you FEEL is wrong- so don't lecture me on evidence.
So in terms of evidence: Me- one citation.
You: Zero citations.
I'm amazed you could get so angry over such a topic, especially when what he said later turned out to be true.
Oh wow that article is something else. Starting with a headline of a self endorsement like "Worstall's fallacy" is pretty funny to start with. Did you bother reading it or just noticed it refuted the video and assume it made sense?
Comparing simply having two children to having $2.5m cash as wealth is so ridiculous I don't even know what to say about it...
Or saying "If I have corporate bonds that pay me $400 a month at 5% interest then that also means, calculating back, that I’ve around $200,000 in wealth, the capital value of those bonds. There is no real conceptual difference between this and my right to $400 a month of food stamps if I should need them. OK, perhaps the “if I should need them” changes the value, but to those getting SNAP they do indeed have a form of wealth. And the value of that wealth is indeed around $200,000 as a capital value. "
Like seriously?!?? Well if they are conceptually the same thing why not just give them the cash?
Seems like we could solve this problem pretty easy. Give every American when they are born an untouchable $500,000-$1,000,000 loan/grant whatever you want to call it and just make it to where the interest pays the loan/cost, subsidizes nutritional needs, pays for their education, etc.. all the 'handouts' that we are already spending money on to provide. Instead of the tax and welfare system we have now?
They could be cashed out after a certain age or forced by legislation to be inherited I mean it could use some flushing out but if people are going to suggest that having an entitlement to $400 in SNAP benefits is the same (or close to) having the $200,000 bond, or that having 2 children go through public education is the same as having $2.5m in cash stuffed in a matress doesn't it make sense to just create the bond instead of just paying out the dividend? That way you still pay out the needed money for food,education,etc.. But you also are creating 'wealth' by creating an 'asset' that can be passed down from generation to generation.
On March 31 2014 09:40 Introvert wrote: Nyxisto provided zero evidence, so DEB provided a counter-example, as well as making an assertion that (at least I thought) was relatively well known.
Evidence that the Republicans are eroding Americas social net? What about: Cutting footstamps, trying to cut unemployment benefits, tax cuts(which have empirically been linked to higher inequality( http://www.nber.org/papers/w19075 )), deregulation in favor of employers and trying to dismantle labour unions?(which basically is the most unfederal, organic form of empowering employees and thus should be in the 'republican spirit'?)
EPT
I said that I think most people would choose group 1 in the given context...
