|
|
On June 20 2012 05:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:01 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 20:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 19 2012 14:25 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:
This is a good thing. We want to always be questioning why we believe the things we believe. We never want to be complacent about why we believe things. You can't do this without other people outrightly challenging your beliefs, even if you are undoubtedly correct.
This is why freedom of speech is so incredibly important. A utopia would be a place where freedom of speech isn't necessary. That's a scary thought indeed. Disagree strongly. What you point out is INTEGRAL to Utopia, not hostile to it. Consider:
When everyone knows beauty is beauty,
this is bad.
When everyone knows good is good,
this is not good.
So being and nonbeing produce each other:
difficulty and ease complement each other,
long and short shape each other,
high and low contrast with each other,
voice and echoes conform to each other,
before and after go along with each other.
So sages manage effortless service
and carry out unspoken guidance.
All beings work, without exception:
if they live without possessiveness,
act without presumption,
and do not dwell on success,
then by this very nondwelling
success will not leave
-Daodejing 2
What happens if people speak out against the utopia status quo? You have a very particular idea about what utopia is supposed to be that is not what I am talking about. You assume already that it is "dystopia" My point is that if we are going to make a better world it will address all of these problems that you point out.
We work without exception? What about pleasure and leisure? And the 'do not dwell on success' also sounds a little weird, honestly, like once again this may be a world without pleasure and entertainment.
Can you read these lines in another way? "All beings work, without exception" can be interpreted many different ways - can you hold all of them in your mind at once? What is "work?" What are different things that "exception" could mean? There is a difference between "having no success" and "not dwelling on success" - what is it? Note that "by this very nondwelling/success will not leave," so what we have here is not a rejection of success. What is success, anyway? I don't know where you get the idea about no pleasure or entertainment. Nothing about that here at all. A utopia is a perfect society. If people are speaking out against the way that society is run (which, I'm claiming, is inevitable) then it's not a utopia.
You are thinking purely in terms of closure. That is one kind of utopia. What I am talking about is a new utopianism that is a synthesis of the dialectic of closure and process. That is the goal. It is not a "perfect" society in the etymological sense of being "completed."
The whole point is that it cannot be improved. I did not mean to imply that people would be silenced if they speak out against the status quo, it was actually a question. What happens if you do?
In Utopia, I think, if someone "spoke out," then everybody would listen respectfully and then there would be a reasonable and friendly discussion. Also, in Utopia, local matters would be organized differently in different localities, so if somebody was unhappy where they were they could go somewhere else where things were run differently (and this would be relatively easy for them to do).
In Utopia everyone is always questioning everything. there isn't any "speaking out" because that's what everyone is already doing, in a way that is respectful and recognizes our common humanity.
I didn't read it has 'having no success.' I read it as 'we're not supposed to bask in how awesome our job was, because we still have more work to do.' Well I might disagree. I like basking. I like leisure. I want to enjoy what a nice job I've done for a little while.
Oh, we agree completely. I think leisure is very near to being the highest good. The point of civilization is to promote human flourishing (to fulfill our species-being). Leisure is a very important part of this (though not all of it, of course).
I don't think leisure and "dwelling on success" are the same thing. I think nondwelling is the prerequisite of leisure.
The passage you gave had nothing about entertainment and leisure. Everything was about work. Don't you think that's a little weird?
?
Everything is not about work. It's just that all beings work, without exception. I think this means that there is not a leisure class which is separate from the working class and exploits it. All beings work in the sense that there are no beings who do not work. Also, all beings "work" in the sense of "function" - there are no beings which do not perform their dharma. This is good thing! It is not "work" in the sense of alienating surplus value, or of post-edenic toil. I think there are more senses in which this can be interpreted; I'll think about it.
This passage doesn't mention leisure explicitly but I don't think it has been specifically elided. Zhaungzi of course is somewhat different than Laozi, despite being in the same tradition, but he very explicitly promotes the virtues of "uselessness." What is a weird is seeing daoist thought as being opposed to leisure.
|
Uhm, ok. Well I don't know anything about this new utopianism or whatever. All I can say is that I care about improving the system, and I don't have an end goal. I just want to fix problems in society (whether through adding/changing government intervention or removing government intervention). If the utopia can radically change from place to place (and somehow magically have equal opportunity), and be an ongoing process, then how would you even recognize the utopia when you had it? It would still be changing and progressing. It just sounds to me like a useless idea of utopia.
Here's a fun article of Eliezer Yudowsky (transhumanist libertarian AI researcher) trying to develop his own 'Eutopia.' Eutopia is Scary. The idea is that his 'Weirdtopia' is meant to be an arguably better society than a Utopia, but would make himself very uncomfortable. Anyway, if you want to continue, I'd suggest taking this to PM as it's rather off-topic.
|
Why is it off-topic? I am an american voter and this is the thinking that informs my vote.
edit:
how would you even recognize the utopia when you had it?
good question! I guess you wouldn't. You would just have to keep thinking harder about it, wouldn't you?
|
On June 20 2012 06:46 sam!zdat wrote:
Why is it off-topic? I am an american voter and this is the thinking that informs my vote.
Err... How does this inform your vote?
|
On June 20 2012 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 06:46 sam!zdat wrote:
Why is it off-topic? I am an american voter and this is the thinking that informs my vote. Err... How does this inform your vote?
Because these are my interests, and my vote is supposed to reflect my interests.
|
On June 20 2012 04:05 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 03:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
Here's the problem. The role of the U.S. Government is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "to serve the needs of its people". Holy shit. The role of the people is to serve the needs of the people. WTF do you think a free market is ? Can you offer any reasoning for why I should accept this position?
How about the reasoning offered in the Founding Document:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
On June 20 2012 07:01 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 04:05 sam!zdat wrote:On June 20 2012 03:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
Here's the problem. The role of the U.S. Government is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "to serve the needs of its people". Holy shit. The role of the people is to serve the needs of the people. WTF do you think a free market is ? Can you offer any reasoning for why I should accept this position? How about the reasoning offered in the Founding Document: Show nested quote +We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
... that sounds exactly like the government is meant to be the will of the people. I can't see how you're reading that any differently. The founding document of the government even starts with 'We the people...'
On June 20 2012 06:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:On June 20 2012 06:46 sam!zdat wrote:
Why is it off-topic? I am an american voter and this is the thinking that informs my vote. Err... How does this inform your vote? Because these are my interests, and my vote is supposed to reflect my interests.
Yea, but the merits of whether a utopian society could exist is at best a tangent to this thread. This thread is about Obama vs Romney. Or maybe Gary Johnson...
|
So not only am I disenfranchised from american politics, I'm disenfranchised from the tl thread ABOUT american politics?
My life sucks 
@Kaitlin:
a) that's not reasoning, its a statement of principle which follows from reasoning which remains unstated
b) how do you interpret the term "Welfare"?
edit: anyway, how can you talk about politics without talking about political philosophy?
|
If Romney wins and he does not get a Nobel peace prize for free he should call is lawyer!
Perfect utopia, easy done folks. We find a enemy in Space and start a war. Humanity peaceful united thx to E.T. ! You dont think this is our only chance? Well when did People really unite to work together? If they had the same enemy.
|
On June 20 2012 02:28 0neder wrote:
While Keynesianism was implemented, it hardly has claim to the success of the 20th century because it was concurrent with relative peace and unparalleled innovation and population growth that drove economic growth. That's as silly as a 'jobs saved' statistic. How has Keynesianism been working out for Europe or, for that matter, America, lately?
Call me simple, but I always thought Keynes basic idea was to spend in recessions and save in boom times? Well the US certainly didn't do any saving when the boom happened which put them in a really bad way come spending time. That doesn't mean the theory is bunk, just its implementation.
As a counter example, I offer my homeland. We saved and cut services, paid down our debt and ran a surplus through 95-07 which meant we had a buffer to spend when the GFC hits us. Government backed bank deposits to prevent runs on the banks and literally gave everyone almost $1000 AUD to spend to bouy consumer confidence and keep the economy going. They spent on housing insulation, school buildings and basic infrastructure and went massively into debt (relative to earlier years, we are still only at about 20% of GDP). However our unemeployment never crossed 7% and is now under %5. Infaltion and interest rates are at record lows and we just had our biggest quarter of GDP growth since 07. In addition, now that we are back at trend growth with the stimulus finished we are again paying down our debt. It worked for us, why not you guys?
|
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus.
|
On June 20 2012 09:24 Lightwip wrote:
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus.
It could be argued that there was still a window, during Bush 1 and Clinton, during which a more savings oriented economic policy would have done the country some good, but its not even worth arguing such things now.
|
On June 20 2012 09:24 Lightwip wrote:
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus.
That's kind of my point 
The Federal reserve dropped the interest rate in response to the recession which ended up being relatively mild. Growth returned and Bush decides to do the exact opposite of what Keynes would suggest. The reserve wasn't helping by not raising rates but the governemnt certainly didn't want to take their medicine.
Ultimately this is a question of fiscal discipline. There is no doubt in my mind that the GFC would not have been so big if there was a contraction of government spending and an increase in interest rates after the dot-com bust. Instead you guys went the other way and are now paying for it. To say that the theory makes no sense because of that, is a tad rich, especially when it has worked elsewhere.
|
On June 20 2012 09:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 09:24 Lightwip wrote:
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus. It could be argued that there was still a window, during Bush 1 and Clinton, during which a more savings oriented economic policy would have done the country some good, but its not even worth arguing such things now.
Clinton actually did run a budget surplus. 2000 was the year of dotcom. After that, the emergency response and the mass spending of Bush(tax cuts) let banks get some massive savings which they used on... substandard loans!
That's the way the bubble is blown.
On June 20 2012 09:32 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 09:24 Lightwip wrote:
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus. That's kind of my point The Federal reserve dropped the interest rate in response to the recession which ended up being relatively mild. Growth returned and Bush decides to do the exact opposite of what Keynes would suggest. The reserve wasn't helping by not raising rates but the governemnt certainly didn't want to take their medicine. Ultimately this is a question of fiscal discipline. There is no doubt in my mind that the GFC would not have been so big if there was a contraction of government spending and an increase in interest rates after the dot-com bust. Instead you guys went the other way and are now paying for it. To say that the theory makes no sense because of that, is a tad rich, especially when it has worked elsewhere.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and with a decent portion of Keynesian theory. I'm just explaining why we're in the situation we're in now.
I'd also wager that US politics are a bit more problematic to progress than Australian ones. We're more of a right-wing country than the rest, and the diversity is far more significant. That makes it harder to sustain a Keynesian model.
|
On June 20 2012 09:24 Lightwip wrote:
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus.
It's probably worth noting that the main thing supporting Australia through the downturn is a continuing resources boom coupled to China's increasing demand, rather than any especially good governance. In fact, most of the surpluses during the strongest economic period went into tax cuts to bolster support in marginal electorates, and the lack of investment in infrastructure and R&D during that period has caused problems down the line.
|
Did you know that the Canadian federal government declared that the CCP (Canadian Pension Plan, or the Canadian equivalent of social security) is able to pay all its liabilities for at least the next 75 years? And that 70 per cent of our healthcare expenses, or almost all basic care, is covered by the government in retirement (the remaining 30% are out-of-pocket costs and the kind of long-term additional care most elderly people need).
Fidelity research in the United States concluded that Americans should save an additional $240,000 when they retire, just to cover their health care costs.
This has nothing to do with the US election. I just like to troll America. Tee hee.
|
On June 20 2012 09:38 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 09:24 Lightwip wrote:
The United States had the dotcom bust and then the Bush tax cuts. We had no time to build any meaningful government surplus. It's probably worth noting that the main thing supporting Australia through the downturn is a continuing resources boom coupled to China's increasing demand, rather than any especially good governance. In fact, most of the surpluses during the strongest economic period went into tax cuts to bolster support in marginal electorates, and the lack of investment in infrastructure and R&D during that period has caused problems down the line.
This is true but is doesn't invalidate my point. We still experienced a recession even with the boom. The point is that whilst our banks where heavily exposed to external money sources (and so the risk of contagion) the choice by the government to support them immediately meant there was never a loss of confidence in the banking system. If you compare that to what happened in the UK with Northern Rock or with Leighmann Brothers, you can see that decisive and immediate government intervention can prevent a lot of damage.
There are always costs associated with saving money, but the benefits are found later. Yes, the boom funded stuff that wasn't necessary but it also allowed us to remove government debt as a source of risk. That is inline with a Keynesian philosophy and to me is pretty good evidence that it can work.
|
On June 20 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:So not only am I disenfranchised from american politics, I'm disenfranchised from the tl thread ABOUT american politics? My life sucks @Kaitlin: a) that's not reasoning, its a statement of principle which follows from reasoning which remains unstated b) how do you interpret the term "Welfare"? edit: anyway, how can you talk about politics without talking about political philosophy?
Did you notice that it say "promote" the general welfare ? Not "provide", "insure", etc ? I can't speak for other countries, but this one is based on the premise that the People are free to pursue their own success or failures. The Government is supposed to protect us from other countries, etc. The government isn't supposed to tell you how to raise your kids, what to feed them, etc.
|
Well, I'm still interested in hearing your reasoning, if you have any.
|
Fear, I would say. And propaganda based on fear. But it would be interesting to see a new real discussion about a health care system for example would go. Would we still get the "communist" bullshit or new arguments by lobbyists that in first place give a fuck about citizens and just care about their profit.
I am quit interested. How I understand USA is right now more split then ever. Obama said there are no democrats and republicans. there are just Americans, but now it seems the gap between the only two choices is getting deeper and deeper. But well we will see who can use the Fear of America for his advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
