Republicans smited [Archive]

mgb

16 Feb 2005, 06:29 AM

Now, I'm not american (nor am I anti-american for that matter), but this (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2004/11/they-voted-for-this-mess.html) says so much, not just about politics, but the types of people that align themselves with bush-lovin', war-mongerin' etc etc ethos.

Should I go so far as to say Blue States = more N types, Red States = more S types????

What really stood out for me was the Red States sucking more welfare money from Social Security, paid for with Blue State taxes.

You are going to make booyalab soooo mad, a red in a blue state.

I don't know if you can go as far as to call Reds Ss' or Blues Ns'. I suppose you could try, the midwest is known for strong religios ties and probably also contains a lot of SPs, given that there is a lot of farming there.

I can't say Kerry is a logical choice though, he wasn't much different than Bush and I I don't think his policies would have had significantly different results. I also imagine that his stoic demeanor didn't cater that well to NFs.

pintpi

16 Feb 2005, 07:06 AM

Should I go so far as to say Blue States = more N types, Red States = more S types????
I'm not sure if it is a N/S split or if it is more of an P/J split. I think one thing that all republicans share, is the ability to believe wholeheartedly any line of crap that is feed to them and completely ignoring all evidence contradicting their belief. I have also noticed this is a common characteristic of Js. Just a correlation, I haven't seen any research on the subject but regardless both Js and republicans annoy me. :rant:

pintpi

16 Feb 2005, 07:10 AM

What really stood out for me was the Red States sucking more welfare money from Social Security, paid for with Blue State taxes.
I should also point out that most of the red states are very close to 50/50, usually 55/45 republican/democrat, so even though the red states take alot of the SS money there are certainly alot of democrats in the red states that are getting SS money.

ApeTheDog

16 Feb 2005, 03:15 PM

It's quite dangerous to make assumptions like this, especially when combined with facts like 'red states take blue states welfare money'. People really like to think of themselves as a victim, it makes think they're entitled to compensation.

I don't think that anything that can't be said for certain about one individual should be said about a group of them. Not because there isn't any truth in it, but because soon stupid people are going to start projecting the logic for the group onto the individual and that can have catastrophic results.

I am a socialist, by the way, and I definately disagree with Red = More sensing. It is not this way in europe. Most of the intellectuals over here have socialist ideals.

misutii

16 Feb 2005, 04:00 PM

I am a socialist, by the way, and I definately disagree with Red = More sensing. It is not this way in europe. Most of the intellectuals over here have socialist ideals.

Intellectuals who show michael moore in class deserve to be shot, i can't believe his documentary won the cannes film festival.....

i don't like republicans, nor do i like democrats, i'd agree with a form of social libertarianism so to speak, if only

Killsteel

16 Feb 2005, 04:34 PM

I'd just like to point out that stupidly (in my opinion), Republicans are red and Democrats are blue, contrary with the rest of the world, in which red = left, blue = right...

I think this is where Ape got confused.

crule81

16 Feb 2005, 05:20 PM

The self-righteousness on both the left and right is nauseating. It's so much easier to label those who support the other side as "stupid" than engage in a real debate about the fundamental ideals of either side.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 06:14 PM

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 06:32 PM

Spoken like a true Roman Emperor...
:lol:

anyways, I agree there's self-righteousness on both sides, but taking that position isn't going to solve anything. I think it's quite possible that more conservatives are sensors, and if that's the case, I see nothing wrong with it and here's why. Politics should NOT be a gigantic thought experiment. A utopian society is NOT going to happen. Sensors are more likely to go with what works and/or what they value than what's the latest philosophy or an ideal of world harmony and ,in the case of politics, the former is less disappointing in the long-run. (now I concede that Bush is more idealistic than the standard conservative and I kind of fault him there)

Actually, if the SS reform goes into play, the "N" party will become the one that's out of the loop.

Now, on the other hand, the blue party has become pretty stagnant within the past 10-20 years. It seems to be pretty much stuck in the last decade it was relevant. I'm sure Democrats have their share of SJs, which when the philosophy of the party is considered, causes more harm than good because the only thing liberals seem to do well, IMO, is initiate the chaotic transition between ways of doing things. So the SJ democrats pine for when everything was chaotic.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 06:41 PM

Yes I think it almost self-evident that Guardians (and other conservative types such as ESTJs) are inherently more likely to vote for the party that has been in power and that has a track record they can see.

However I'm not sure this means they're more likely to be *conservative* in their political orientation. In practice the Republican party in the U.S has been in power more in the past 50 years, and for longer periods of time, than the Democrats, so I guess this translates to more support from SJs. Not sure about SPs - I only know one here, and I'm not sure he thinks about his political inclinations very carefully at all!

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 06:55 PM

about SPs - I only know one here, and I'm not sure he thinks about his political inclinations very carefully at all!

One of my first memories of politics was the hype around Clinton's alleged attractiveness and charm. (lots of it was implied, since his picture was on the cover of all the entertainment magazines) It was absurd and it took me a long time to muster the desire to be interested in politics after that. I was only about 8 or 9 but I remember all of the SP girls in school or in my neighborhood talking about how cool or good looking he was (gross I know). Anyways, my POINT is that SFPs and some ESTP females were probably the main culprits there. Also, that 'rock the vote' shit was probably started by SPs and I'll bet P.Diddy, originator of that stupid 'vote or die', is probably an SP as well. Also anyone in the green party.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 06:58 PM

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 07:06 PM

Ah OK so SPs and SJs are more likely to vote on appearance too?

That's pretty scary.

I know when our female PM in New Zealand was first elected there were big issues around the way she looked, and her level of attractiveness (as *if* it mattered)!

She is very plain looking and has a deep (mannish) sounding voice. Before the election she engaged a PR firm to work with her on appearance issues and moderate the sound of her voice. I think this is a sad indictment..

I heard something once along the lines of "smart people are not above using noxious ideas". The candidates "smart" observers view as being shallow or having a dumbed-down simplistic vocab, might just be cunning themselves(or have cunning people behind them), because they know what most people respond to.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 07:13 PM

Yeah well now the PM is into her second 3 year term of office and will probably be re-elected this year with a huge majority.

Essentially she has now proven herself so people no longer care much what she looks like or how deep her voice is. She is a competent and effective PM and voters can see that.

I do think though the voters in the US set far too much store by the way candidates appear or how "charismatic" they are. There is a personality cult around presidential and senatorial candidates that seems to grossly detract from any analysis of serious issues they may be campaigning on.

sbw

16 Feb 2005, 07:28 PM

It is not this way in europe. Most of the intellectuals over here have socialist ideals.

THAT'S WHY EUROPE IS BROKE.

Scott

Zero Angel

16 Feb 2005, 07:29 PM

*stabs ear with Q-Tip*

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 07:33 PM

THAT'S WHY EUROPE IS BROKE.

Scott
:lol:

cute

crule81

16 Feb 2005, 08:03 PM

I wasn't addressing the postings as much as the blog that Serotonin included. Read it and puke.

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 08:09 PM

I wasn't addressing the postings as much as the blog that Serotonin included. Read it and puke.
It doesn't matter since I wasn't taking anything specific into account, and I agree with you.

I couldn't read very far. I don't understand why some people(both sides, blah blah) need to surround themselves with people/articles/etc that only agree with their position, then they accuse the other side of being intolerant. Real, rational debate is then impossible. (edit: Oh I think we talked about this same thing awhile ago when I first joined)

Dman

16 Feb 2005, 08:36 PM

:lol:

anyways, I agree there's self-righteousness on both sides, but taking that position isn't going to solve anything. I think it's quite possible that more conservatives are sensors, and if that's the case, I see nothing wrong with it and here's why. Politics should NOT be a gigantic thought experiment. A utopian society is NOT going to happen. Sensors are more likely to go with what works and/or what they value than what's the latest philosophy or an ideal of world harmony and ,in the case of politics, the former is less disappointing in the long-run. (now I concede that Bush is more idealistic than the standard conservative and I kind of fault him there)

Agreed. Republicans are more “just get it done” while Democrats are more “how can we all get along”. As for Bush, I think his idealistic nature is tempered by his decisiveness and quick action, which is likely a primary reason he was re-elected.

On another note, as for Clinton’s charm, you must also remember that Clinton (and Gore) were among the most intelligent people we’ve had in office. These guys were literally geniuses.

BTW – regarding “red states vs. blue states” I saw a funny email that had all the blue states morphed with Canada, called “the United States of Canada”, and all the red states lumped together as “Jesusland”.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 08:40 PM

On another note, as for Clinton’s charm, you must also remember that Clinton (and Gore) were among the most intelligent people we’ve had in office. These guys were literally geniuses.

But for every one of them, another example can be found of a President who's been elected largely on the basis of personality cult. Reagan, JFK, Nixon (to an extent)...

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 08:44 PM

Agreed. Republicans are more “just get it done” while Democrats are more “how can we all get along”. As for Bush, I think his idealistic nature is tempered by his decisiveness and quick action, which is likely a primary reason he was re-elected.

On another note, as for Clinton’s charm, you must also remember that Clinton (and Gore) were among the most intelligent people we’ve had in office. These guys were literally geniuses.

BTW – regarding “red states vs. blue states” I saw a funny email that had all the blue states morphed with Canada, called “the United States of Canada”, and all the red states lumped together as “Jesusland”.

It's popular to say that Gore was a genius, but he obviously wasn't smart enough to hold himself in debate, he totally relied on the popular perception that he was smart.

BTW, songbird, Nixon was a genius, and Reagan had a major accomplishment to his name for being just a 'personality cult'. JFK could have done a lot more (or lot less...:/)if he hadn't been on drugs.

Dman

16 Feb 2005, 08:48 PM

"Skilled" enough, Gore wasn't "skilled" enough.

Reagan was an ass. The big thing today is what a superb president he was, when in fact he was a dolt. Pure charm. What a shame he'll be remembered in history as some great figure, when it was all about charm and luck. Lucky Charms!

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 08:48 PM

BTW, songbird, Nixon was a genius, and Reagan had a major accomplishment to his name for being just a 'personality cult'. JFK could have done a lot more (or lot less...:/)if he hadn't been on drugs.

I'm not saying he wasn't. All I'm saying is that he wasn't elected for his cleverness, he was elected for his overwhelming charisma.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 08:50 PM

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 08:59 PM

"Skilled" enough, Gore wasn't "skilled" enough.

Yes debating is a skill, one a retard can't learn.

But maybe he was so smart he had some brilliant theory as to why he shouldn't learn the important skill of debating. Unfortunately his brilliant theory fell flat, so no wonder everyone said he was "too smart".

Reagan was an ass. The big thing today is what a superb president he was, when in fact he was a dolt. Pure charm. What a shame he'll be remembered in history as some great figure, when it was all about charm and luck. Lucky Charms!

whoa, touche

Dman

16 Feb 2005, 09:12 PM

My reference to Gore & Clinton was to educational achievements and test scores, as well as demonstrated knowledge, which admittedly is not an all-encompassing gauge of intelligence. His charismatic intelligence and ability to connect with people was, uh, not high.

Now Dan Quayle - hey! What a prodigy!
Makes georgie boy look like Einstein.

misutii

16 Feb 2005, 10:57 PM

Yes debating is a skill, one a retard can't learn.

But maybe he was so smart he had some brilliant theory as to why he shouldn't learn the important skill of debating. Unfortunately his brilliant theory fell flat, so no wonder everyone said he was "too smart".

debating is a skill but just because someone can grasp the concepts of verbal debate better than another does not mean he has more intelligence. You have to remember that when these candidates debate their audience is the lowest common denominator, now imagine having to purposely misspell your posts, second guess every word you use lest it be too big, and put commas in the wrong places just to get your points across. It's an assault on one's intellectual integrity to have to pretend to be an idiot just to be popular and just because somone is not able to stoop that low does not mean we should descredit him. Gore was the better candidate but he didn't get elected because "he was too boring," what kind of argument is that? the argument given by the lowest common denominator that he was debating too... damn peasants. anyways i'm happy i don't live in the US or i'd be way more irate about these things. In canada we have a one party system so don't even have to bother talking about who is the best debatee.

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 11:25 PM

debating is a skill but just because someone can grasp the concepts of verbal debate better than another does not mean he has more intelligence. You have to remember that when these candidates debate their audience is the lowest common denominator, now imagine having to purposely misspell your posts, second guess every word you use lest it be too big, and put commas in the wrong places just to get your points across. It's an assault on one's intellectual integrity to have to pretend to be an idiot just to be popular and just because somone is not able to stoop that low does not mean we should descredit him. Gore was the better candidate but he didn't get elected because "he was too boring," what kind of argument is that? the argument given by the lowest common denominator that he was debating too... damn peasants. anyways i'm happy i don't live in the US or i'd be way more irate about these things. In canada we have a one party system so don't even have to bother talking about who is the best debatee.

Oh please, Bush has obvious weak verbal skill and he still beat Gore's allegedly genius ass at it. Debate is more than just verbal, btw. Bush's arguments were more substanstive as well as delivered better. If Gore was as intelligent as everyone says he would have made some effort at learning how to debate, rather than relying solely on what we had been told about him.

The intelligence that is shown in a debate is the SAME KIND that is necessary in leading a country, therefore, if Gore didn't have that kind of intelligence...it would be misleading to say he was an intelligent candidate.

Dman

17 Feb 2005, 12:52 AM

Wha...? What debate were YOU watching? Bush was more substantive and delivered better? You can understand the gibberish coming out of that guy's mouth? THAT's where you learned the word "alogical", isn't it! It's a Bushism!

And I thought you said Nixon was intelligent or great or something, but did you ever see his debates? Atrocious!

joft

17 Feb 2005, 12:58 AM

debates like that kind of depend on the responses of the audience. the vast population of (relatively) uneducated people with little or no vision into public or foreign policy and international affairs are going to respond better to a no-nonsense cowboy guy just because they identify with him more.

booyalab

17 Feb 2005, 01:11 AM

Wha...? What debate were YOU watching? Bush was more substantive and delivered better? You can understand the gibberish coming out of that guy's mouth? THAT's where you learned the word "alogical", isn't it! It's a Bushism!

Everyone except you knows that Bush did better than Gore on the debates, not for the same reasons I will list about Nixon vs. JFK.

And I thought you said Nixon was intelligent or great or something, but did you ever see his debates? Atrocious!

Nixon looked old and seemed boring. JFK looked tan and young and had more charm.
That is how viewers perceived it and they couldn't get past it.

Edmond Zedo

17 Feb 2005, 01:49 AM

THAT'S WHY EUROPE IS BROKE.

Scott
"It's the final countdown!..."

Shai Gar

17 Feb 2005, 02:19 AM

only america will recall reagan with a smile, that man brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and then gave the russians the finger and told them to screw their mothers with it.

clinton bombed a pharmacutical plant in sudan killing millions with the effects just for a pharmacutical plant who wanted competition gone.

no US president was good, well in this and the last century at least

booyalab

17 Feb 2005, 02:35 AM

Dman

17 Feb 2005, 04:31 AM

Everyone except you knows that Bush did better than Gore on the debates, not for the same reasons I will list about Nixon vs. JFK.

"everyone except" me is a hollow argument, wouldn't you agree? Well, on second thought I do agree...Bush did a better job of making an ass out of himself than Gore did!

BTW - Actually, Nixon was quite talented at debating, I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.

And - stop trying to get me fired up. That's my trick. I knew I shouldn't have divulged it.

Or at least try harder to, by directly disputing my points (see Nixon comment above).

Dman

17 Feb 2005, 04:46 AM

clinton bombed a pharmacutical plant in sudan killing millions with the effects just for a pharmacutical plant who wanted competition gone.

no US president was good, well in this and the last century at least

Where is your objectiveness? Do you think every PM of Australia was a saint, never caused a death?

And, uh, killing millions? Don't think so. I believe the tally was closer to 12. Yes, TWELVE people. Period.

It wasn't about competition. It was about politics. The US needed an excuse to hit Sudan, due to politics, and did.

Opinions are fine, but please try to interject some facts.

misutii

17 Feb 2005, 01:27 PM

Oh please, Bush has obvious weak verbal skill and he still beat Gore's allegedly genius ass at it. Debate is more than just verbal, btw. Bush's arguments were more substanstive as well as delivered better. If Gore was as intelligent as everyone says he would have made some effort at learning how to debate, rather than relying solely on what we had been told about him.

The intelligence that is shown in a debate is the SAME KIND that is necessary in leading a country, therefore, if Gore didn't have that kind of intelligence...it would be misleading to say he was an intelligent candidate.

the same kind of intelligence that lead to billions of dollars of debt alongside a trillion dollar deficit and the alienation of the only countries that would aid you in ridding yourself of that debt? As well if Bush's debating skills were that great he's surely have won the election by a larger margin?

Edit: and not to mention that Bush got absolutely destroyed in the debates with Kerry and yet still won the election

booyalab

17 Feb 2005, 05:37 PM

the same kind of intelligence that lead to billions of dollars of debt alongside a trillion dollar deficit and the alienation of the only countries that would aid you in ridding yourself of that debt? As well if Bush's debating skills were that great he's surely have won the election by a larger margin?

Edit: and not to mention that Bush got absolutely destroyed in the debates with Kerry and yet still won the election

So (accepting everything you say for the purpose of consistency), in conclusion..the debates are absolutely no measure of intelligence and altogether worthless? What instead then? (seriously.....since obviously nothing was able to convince the american people of how utterly despicable Bush was and comparitively awesome Gore or Kerry was, what would have shown them?) Should some extremely wise individual such as yourself or Dman maybe, be appointed as the person who decides which candidate is better and then everyone should vote accordingly?

Philo

17 Feb 2005, 06:05 PM

So (accepting everything you say for the purpose of consistency), in conclusion..the debates are absolutely no measure of intelligence and altogether worthless? What instead then? (seriously.....since obviously nothing was able to convince the american people of how utterly despicable Bush was and comparitively awesome Gore or Kerry was, what would have shown them?) Should some extremely wise individual such as yourself or Dman maybe, be appointed as the person who decides which candidate is better and then everyone should vote accordingly?

How about starting with real debates instead?

I don't remember the exact history, but I believe the League of Women Voters originally ran the debates. They allowed any presidential candidate to participate, and reserved the right to ask impromtu questions of the candidates during the debate. Well, since this would make the Reps & Dems look bad, they decided not to play (I don't remember whether they simply decided to boycott the debates, or if they threatened legal action of some sort). Anyway, the LoWV resigned, the Reps & Dems created a "nonpartisan" corporation to run the debates, which then made it an "invitation only" event, and allowed the candidates invited to control the questioning process.

While we may not end up with better leaders, open debates would at least expose the American public to all points of view and expose cracks in a platform that might not get seen otherwise.

At least the debates would be more entertaining. I remember looking forward to the debates when Perot was running for President for this reason alone.
:D

booyalab

17 Feb 2005, 06:11 PM

open debates have their cons too, I guess that's what they do in Canada and it can get emotional.

Philo

17 Feb 2005, 06:30 PM

mgb

17 Feb 2005, 06:30 PM

booyalab

17 Feb 2005, 06:50 PM

You make it sound like Bush won the election with 100% of the popular vote.

and you make it sound like he didn't get the majority, and that those who voted for him had more worthless reasons for doing it than those who voted for Kerry. If you're not trying to say either of those things, then there would be no connection with what I said.

booyalab

17 Feb 2005, 06:51 PM

Agreed, but that, to me, is yet another good indicator that would come from the debate. I personally wouldn't want someone that can get easily unstable in a debate in office. It doesn't bode well for the candidate when he's really under pressure.

but what if both of them digress into too much emotion? It's more likely that they both handle pressure well otherwise they wouldn't have beat out the other's running in their party and wouldnt' have made it that far. The reason for digressing into too much emotion would probably be because it only takes one to slip and bring the overall tone down.

Philo

17 Feb 2005, 07:44 PM

Interesting point, though I'm not sure it would ever digress that far, especially if they know people are looking for that sort of thing. Image is everything, and the candidates know that. They'll do whatever it takes to look good, but I think a more open debate format, such as being required to field off-the-cuff questions, would find the cracks in the armor, so to speak.

Your second point hits on the other side of what I was driving at. Would it be acceptable for such a "slip" to happen in negotiations with, say, North Korea? Granted, most of this is done by underlings, but one slip by the President, even during a press conference, could cause more harm than not saying anything.

Dman

17 Feb 2005, 09:43 PM

those who voted for him had more worthless reasons for doing it than those who voted for Kerry

Bingo!

QrioCT

17 Feb 2005, 11:51 PM

environment affects choices sometimes in a way that it hinders good thinking. so many states that has almost everyone voting for one same thing, which probably is environment.

Phyl T. Mynd

30 Mar 2005, 12:35 PM

Should I go so far as to say Blue States = more N types, Red States = more S types????

That's funny: I've always thought that we NT types [cold, dispassionate, logical, rational] should be overwhelmingly conservatives while liberals [irrational, emotional, touchy, dishonest] would tend to be mostly SF's.

Maybe there's no real connection between personality type and ideological viewpoint...

I'd just like to point out that stupidly (in my opinion), Republicans are red and Democrats are blue, contrary with the rest of the world, in which red = left, blue = right...

I think this is where Ape got confused.

I was beginning to think that I was the only person who was bothered by this topsy-turvy, inside-out color scheme.

How did the goddamn Taxocrats get to be blue anyway?

I think the liberal news media switched the colors around in an attempt to break the connection most people make [liberal/red/commie-symp] and create in the public's mind a subliminal aversion to Republicans [the color red being associated with danger and blood].

Forloren

30 Mar 2005, 06:02 PM

Last I remember, 1 citizen gets 1 vote. There are no other requirements. It doesn't matter how educated you are, it doesn't matter how rich you are. Everyone has their own reasons for voting for who they did. To discount there reason as "stupid" or "dumb" because you don't agree with them is stupid and dumb.

Personaly, right now, I won't vote for any democrat. I'm not a socialist, and that's how I see the deocrats right now. I do not think the governemnt for example should provide healthcare to all. Healthcare is a privledge that society gives you if you provide enough value to society. Right now I am doing nothing for society, so I am not getting any healthcare. That's not to say I think the system is fine. It is grossly mismanaged and I don't think there should be profit in the life and death of people. I also don't think the government should be involved in the life and death of it's citizens. I don't know the solution yet. If I did, I wouldn't be here.

This country and society are dynamic. Whoever is in power is in control of where that dynamic goes. Once I feel that society has moved to far to the right, I will then vote to have it moved towards the left, untill such time that I think it needs to move back to the right. Like any dynamic model, you don't want to overdamp it nor do you want to underdamp it. You want it just right.

-Forloren

booyalab

30 Mar 2005, 06:28 PM

That's funny: I've always thought that we NT types [cold, dispassionate, logical, rational] should be overwhelmingly conservatives while liberals [irrational, emotional, touchy, dishonest] would tend to be mostly SF's.

Since men tend to be thinkers and women tend to be feelers, and men tend to be conservative more often than (single, not influenced by husband or family) women, then there does appear to be a correlation between the judging functions and political persuasion. On the other hand, liberalism has a pretty strong grip on the educated class, which is largely made up of Ns. So it makes sense to me that a good number of NTs would be liberal.

Biff_Loman

30 Mar 2005, 07:41 PM

From a Canadian perspective, both of the parties in the U.S. are right-of-center. To be honest, the American Right confuses me so much. I just don't understand.

Maybe someone like Booyalab can help me. Seriously; I'm not being sarcastic or pompous here.

I don't understand how concentrating wealth in the hands of the upper class constitutes "what works." Someone mentioned that "Europe is broke." All right - but U.S. government debt is significant, to the say the least (and staggering, to say the most). And from a Canadian perspective, Americans have the choice of right (democrat) and right-of-right (GOP).

I guess I just look at things from the perspective of a history student. "The elite," whoever they have been, have always used religion as a tool to enhance the natural tendency of economies to further enrich the wealthy. We already have a world system in which much of the world is exploited in order to enrich the top, say, 5%. The American middle class is in this 5%, so it's in the upper class's best interest to try and rob them blind, since the rest of the world has already been milked.

I wouldn't vote for a party who effectively represents the very individuals who have the opportunity and desire to impoverish me to benefit themselves. This just seems like a basic act of rational thought.

Nighthawk

30 Mar 2005, 08:00 PM

I wouldn't vote for a party who effectively represents the very individuals who have the opportunity and desire to impoverish me to benefit themselves. This just seems like a basic act of rational thought.
Which is exactly why I don't vote for either party.

Forloren

30 Mar 2005, 08:16 PM

I don't understand how concentrating wealth in the hands of the upper class constitutes "what works." Someone mentioned that "Europe is broke." All right - but U.S. government debt is significant, to the say the least (and staggering, to say the most). And from a Canadian perspective, Americans have the choice of right (democrat) and right-of-right (GOP).
And thus one sees the real truth. The democrats, especialy this last election, and only in my oppinion, were very two-faced and pandering. All they were concerned about was getting power back, they wanted to be the ones running things. Basicaly every stance they had was the opposite of the GOP. They weren't concered with what was best for the country, they were concerned with what could get them elected. Democrates are just as rich and elite as republicans. ( I also think there was a switch at some point in US history, wasn't the old republican party now the democrat party, or something like that? )

Me, personaly, I'd rather see the wolf for what it is, rather than see it in sheeps clothing.

-Forloren

Phyl T. Mynd

30 Mar 2005, 11:32 PM

From a Canadian perspective, both of the parties in the U.S. are right-of-center. To be honest, the American Right confuses me so much. I just don't understand [...] how concentrating wealth in the hands of the upper class constitutes "what works."

Confusion like yours is common on the left. It stems from a basic misunderstanding [...'I don't understand how concentrating wealth in the hands of the upper class constitutes "what works"'...] of what free enterprise is and how it operates.

Far from "concentrating wealth" in the hands of a few, free enterprise makes the tools of wealth creation available to any person willing to undertake the risk.

I guess I just look at things from the perspective of a history student. "The elite," whoever they have been, have always used religion as a tool to enhance the natural tendency of economies to further enrich the wealthy.

Whoa!! Slow down there, Comrade! "[T]he natural tendency of economies to further enrich the wealthy???" The "natural tendency" of any social system is to reward [or "enrich", if you like] those who are capable and/or daring.

We already have a world system in which much of the world is exploited in order to enrich the top, say, 5%. The American middle class is in this 5%, so it's in the upper class's best interest to try and rob them blind, since the rest of the world has already been milked.

Drippy-nosed socialist drivel! There is no "upper class." At least not of the sort imagined by biff loman and his fellow Trotskyites -- a permanent, perpetual, impenetrable ruling class from which those below are forever excluded. But even if such a ruling class really did exist, it would hardly be in their best interests to impoverish everyone around them.

The wealthy man in a world of paupers will find few uses for his wealth, but a wealthy man in a prosperous community can do quite well. AXIOM: "Prosperous people make better trading partners."

I wouldn't vote for a party who effectively represents the very individuals who have the opportunity and desire to impoverish me to benefit themselves. This just seems like a basic act of rational thought.

"...the opportunity and desire to impoverish me to benefit themselves..." Perhaps you are unaware that you describe the liberal/socialist. It is the leftist -- not the capitalist -- who has the means and incentive to impoverish vast numbers of people.

Socialists here and abroad absolutely depend on poverty to keep them in power! You can't sell socialism to happy, prosperous people! There must, therefore, be huge throngs of poor, angry, miserable people for the leftists to agitate. Without poverty to demagogue and exploit, the socialists would be out of business.

Biff_Loman

31 Mar 2005, 12:18 AM

I don't think Phyl T. Mynd lives in the same historical universe I do.

moni

31 Mar 2005, 12:36 AM

errr... people here seem to like stereotyping or categorizing others just based on their "type," don't they? i'm out of place here anyway, so i guess i should just expect these kind of comments.

i voted for kerry, despite my S-ness and J-ness. even if people believe both parties are quite similar, there is still a difference in how both sides would generally work with an issue. i couldn't stand what bush has done during his last term, ugh... and i seriously thought he wouldn't win during the last election! obviously gay marriage was a stronger issue than economy and education... woo hoooo! :mad:

my co-worker, who is super smart, just graduated with a B.S in computer science... and has been accepted to several grad schools: Harvard, Princeton, University of Washington, and Santa Cruz. HE voted for Bush.... I realized later on that he is a very strong christian.

The single biggest event of 2004 was the Election Day exit poll, which, like John Steinbeck's "The Short Reign of Pippin IV," made John Kerry the president for a few moments. But in a move that stunned the experts, American voters chose "moral values" over an America-bashing trophy husband and his blow-dried, ambulance-chasing sidekick.

If anyone would like to read more of these types of commentaries, visit Ann Coulter's site (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns.html). I don't understand how her books have become bestsellers...

sorry for all the randomness... my thoughts jumped from one thing to another.

Thermo

31 Mar 2005, 01:41 AM

I will be honest, I don't like Bush or his policies aside from the war in Afganistan. You could also say he ran a underhanded campaign, with the Swiftboats, attempts to deny poor people or liberals from voting, etc. I don't think you could say he fairly won the vote in either election due to the way he tampered with people's right to vote.

However, Kerry's campaign sucked the big one. He did not deserve to win, because he didn't really seem to want the Presidency. He did not fight back or have any real organization or message. Its to bad Dean messed up early on. I wish I could get my vote and the $25 back.

Although, I don't like Bush being my President, sadly he was the better choice.

meshou

31 Mar 2005, 02:50 AM

I don't think Phyl T. Mynd lives in the same historical universe I do.Yeah, me either. I think he seems to come from the guilded age. The prettier part of it.

I can't afford college. In order to get into college, I need to make a salary I would only get by having a post-college job.

Or I could go into debt all my life. In which case, I would sort of have an artificial net worth based on my income, but it would really be in the negative for a good long period of time.

The only way for me to break into the middle class would be to go into massive debt.

Who makes money off of me going into debt? People who aren't in debt in the first place. Banks, colleges etc.

Free enterprise does not give me the tools. It pretty much holds me hostage by artificially requiring an expensive piece of paper in order to get a swank job at a coffee shop so I could make a whole 8 bucks an hour. And yes, those are extremely hard to get with only a high school diploma.

I am all sorts of capable. I just can't afford that useful piece of paper. The people who can right off the bat make more money quicker even if they're absolute mouth-breathers.

absolutely depend on poverty to keep them in power! You can't sell socialism to happy, prosperous people! There must, therefore, be huge throngs of poor, angry, miserable people for the leftists to agitate. Without poverty to demagogue and exploit, the socialists would be out of business.Well, it is lucky for the socialists that the capitalists are more than willing to provide.

Geek Engineer

31 Mar 2005, 03:05 AM

I have a hard time keeping up with things, but here is my 2 cents on this subject.

I hope I can be proud to say it here that I don't like Bush either. He is sure seems out to make sure the rich will have plenty of money. As for the environment he is a joke you got to be kiding me... As for the way he handled the "NOT finding WMD" issue he was totaly keeping himself out of it. I think he should have been honest and taken responsiblity for the failure. He is the president and the buck should stop at his desk. If he did that I would have change my opinion of him.

Nighthawk

31 Mar 2005, 03:10 AM

Free enterprise and capitalism have worked pretty well for me. My parents were immigrants who came to this country from Europe with $200 a few years before I was born. They embraced capitalism and made a comfortable living for themselves. I managed to pay for both my degrees without going into debt ... through a combination of scholarships and giving a few years to the military. My wife, also the child of immigrants, paid for both her degrees herself too. Neither of our parents shelled out a dime. The government gave neither of us handouts, nor did we want them. My wife has her own business, in addition to a good career. I have a pretty good career too. We pay for our own health insurance and have never collected a day of unemployment or welfare. We managed to accomplish all of this without help from the liberals and despite the oppressiveness of the conservatives. Capitalism works for me. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing national healthcare and a decent retirement system here in the USA.

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 03:22 AM

Free enterprise does not give me the tools. It pretty much holds me hostage by artificially requiring an expensive piece of paper in order to get a swank job at a coffee shop so I could make a whole 8 bucks an hour. And yes, those are extremely hard to get with only a high school diploma.

I am all sorts of capable. I just can't afford that useful piece of paper. The people who can right off the bat make more money quicker even if they're absolute mouth-breathers.

And that's how the lefties do it: They convince you that you're helpless; completely at the mercy of vindictive forces beyond your control. Then they tell you that -- with their help -- you can oppress the "mouth-breathers" who oppress you and "get even".

Your personal success begins with one simple but difficult step: STOP thinking like a victim and STOP believing that the liberals are nice people who care deeply about you.

Well, it is lucky for the socialists that the capitalists are more than willing to provide.

Capitalism creates wealth... for those who get up off of their butts, quit whining, and work!

Geek Engineer

31 Mar 2005, 03:41 AM

...Still, I wouldn't mind seeing national healthcare and a decent retirement system here in the USA.

I would like to national heathcare as well. It something we all end up having pay for wheather you you think you are or not. At least that way the costs might be more transparent then they seem now.

As for capitalism I don't have an issue with that so much. It appears to work the best in most cases so far, but it is when people abuse the system and get too gready that really upsets me. However, I know not everyone is like that and who want to make an honest living. However, I think the total compensation a lot of CEOs get is too much these days.

It is just that I feel like people want something for nothing these days. The Republian party seems to know how to sell this well. There is aways an eventual cost to not paying taxes for instance. You can pay less taxes if you want, but then you should expect less services from your government then. Granted goverment has it's share of waste just as you will find in the corporate world, and there should always be room for improvement. However, our goverment is in so much debt and it's because it is popular and easier to give the people something for nothing.. Why pay today when you can pay later or won't live long enouph to have to worry about it.

Nighthawk

31 Mar 2005, 03:46 AM

However, I think the total compensation a lot of CEOs get is too much these days.

I'm with you there. I definitely swing to the left when I see excesses like Enron and Worldcom.

mgb

31 Mar 2005, 03:46 AM

meshou

31 Mar 2005, 03:48 AM

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 04:42 AM

I'm a capitalist. I think it's the best system available. I still think it's flawed as all fuck.

It's your thinking that's flawed.

Oh for fuck's sake. Now I don't work?

Look, I'm twenty. I'm fine. Soon, miracle of miracles, I might be able to afford this "meat" thing people keep talking about. Very exciting.

I'm talking about the sixty year old women who've been at my job at my salary since they were my age.

How about you come to work call them lazy.

I didn't call anybody lazy. But if you're working just enough to make ends meet, then you're not working enough... I worked two full-time jobs for over a year to scrape together the small bit of cash it took to start my business. It would have been easy to sit on the couch sniveling, "I can't get a loan; those evil, stupid bankers won't lend me any money, because they claim my credit stinks. I'm at the mercy of forces beyond my control... boo hoo hoo." Instead, I chose to get up off of my butt and work!

You have a simple choice: a.] accumulate some capital and do something with it, or b.] continue whining that you're at the mercy of powerful and mean people who want to hurt you for no good reason. Whichever works best for ya, kiddo!

Yeah, I'm a liberal. Hell, maybe I am faking it. But they've been there, they obviously aren't lazy, and if they want to call bullshit on that attitude, I'm gonna believe them over you. Sorry.

Believe what you like. But if you believe that the Taxocrats are nice people and that they care about what happens to you, you're in for a hard, hard, miserable life. And don't say I didn't warn you...

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 04:50 AM

And that's how the lefties do it: They convince you that you're helpless; completely at the mercy of vindictive forces beyond your control. Then they tell you that -- with their help -- you can oppress the "mouth-breathers" who oppress you and "get even".

Your personal success begins with one simple but difficult step: STOP thinking like a victim and STOP believing that the liberals are nice people who care deeply about you.

Capitalism creates wealth... for those who get up off of their butts, quit whining, and work!

I've read enough of argument in this vein over the years. Yes it's true, but it's not the whole story.

People in their early twenties ARE working, hard as hell. Waiting tables, digging trenches, administrating systems, doing clerical work. As hard as any other generation has, possibly harder. But the time it takes to create wealth and comfort nowadays is three or four times as long as it was in the seventies.
Why is this?
Inflation in the property market. My parents paid their morgage off in ten years flat (81-91). During a period of high interest rates by mostly Labor (the relatively "left" party) governments.
Nowadays house prices are 10 times the amount they were, because of
a) inflation
b) property developers and real estate agents assumed, due feminism and the rising numbers of women in the workforce, that each family was dual income with <= 2 kids.

Also contributing to this are higher taxes and HECS (Higher Education Contribution Schemes) - university fees.

My generation are preferring to rent, and financially we just manage to keep our heads above water. In the meantime, of course we are going to tell ourselves: "Comfort is a long way down the road. Like hell i'm going to shut up and silently work until I get it. I'm young, I want to discuss the big things, I want experience life, I refuse to be a company stooge".

This leads to a lot of young people spending money on travel, ephemeral material goods, alcohol and cigarettes. No investment for the future.
The ones that survive are the ones with wealthy parents who peel them off the footpath when they have gone over the top.
So parental wealth, not talent or drive or the "will to succeed" is the main factor when considering whether people will pass the "university of life" or not.

So whatever you do, don't fucking call us lazy. The "you can do it: all you need is the will" attitude works for maybe 5-10% of people. Most people try their darndest, and still fail. This is true for even the most capable people.

meshou

31 Mar 2005, 05:17 AM

It's your thinking that's flawed.All right. If you honestly believe that capitalism is the only system in the entire world that doesn't have flaws... bully for you? Have fun?

I didn't call anybody lazy. But if you're working just enough to make ends meet, then you're not working enough... I worked two full-time jobs for over a year to scrape together the small bit of cash it took to start my business. It would have been easy to sit on the couch sniveling, "I can't get a loan; those evil, stupid bankers won't lend me any money, because they claim my credit stinks. I'm at the mercy of forces beyond my control... boo hoo hoo." Instead, I chose to get up off of my butt and work!My credit is good. I don't want my own business. I don't want a loan. I know myself well enough to know owning my own business at this point would make me miserable. It'd have to be something I love. If it's meant to happen, something will come along.

Yes, this is a laid back idea that's not likely to get me anywhere. My life, fucker. If I decide to live at this income the rest of my life and be fine, no skin off your nose.

I have problems with the educational system. It used to be that a high school diploma meant something. It currently doesn't. This is a documented shift over the past forty years-- high school is now meant as preparation for college, and jobs that used to require just high school now require college. They used to be just for specialty, which is how their price was dictated.

Thus, I think the price for college is artificially high. I think this is a failure of both economy and the educational system. Don't agree? OK.

You have a simple choice: a.] accumulate some capital and do something with it, or b.] continue whining that you're at the mercy of powerful and mean people who want to hurt you for no good reason. Whichever works best for ya, kiddo!Who are these people you're talking about? Who are you talking to? I have no problem with people who make more than me. I am not oppressed by anyone, nor have I said I was.

Yeah, there are people who demonize the rich. I haven't expressed that. How about you stop addressing this idea of a liberal and talk to me? Thanks.

I don't like the idea that those are my options. I do not want a gaining capitol based life. It would not fulfill me. But as you say, those are my options.

I think that those are fewer options than people used to have. Studies show they are. And I think that if life is giving people fewer options, if this system is giving people fewer options, that's fucked up.

I reject the idea of money-driven living. I can work this job all my life, and if something outside it makes my life worth it, I would be content. In the mean time, I'd like to make ends meet. I'd like to have the choice to make ends meet without joining the race to the top.

That used to exist. There are fewer choices. And that's what capitalism at it's best, is supposed to be about. If it's not there in the current system, then something in it is broken.

My concern is that I don't believe that the freedom of choice you talk about exists to the extent you say it does. My concern is that I think the market can support a full time job allowing someone to support his or her self, and often doesn't. If it doesn't, I think there's something wrong with it.

If you don't agree, fair enough.

Believe what you like. But if you believe that the Taxocrats are nice people and that they care about what happens to you, you're in for a hard, hard, miserable life. And don't say I didn't warn you...Where the hell did I say the Democrats were nice people? I'm not even a Democrat! I'm a Lib! I voted Lib! Harder core free-fucking-economists than the Republicans can stomach.

I can support something I think is flawed. But sure as fuck, I want it fixed.

I just think you people are fuck all for the gay rights thing. And the drugs thing. And the abortion thing. Pretty much the whole Jerry Fallwell dictated morality shite. What the hell is wrong with you people on those anyway?

That's rhetorical.

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 05:18 AM

This leads to a lot of young people spending money on travel, ephemeral material goods, alcohol and cigarettes. No investment for the future.
A legitimate choice... but not a very good one.

So whatever you do, don't fucking call us lazy. The "you can do it: all you need is the will" attitude works for maybe 5-10% of people.

5-10%, is it? Leaving aside the accuracy [and consequently, the validity] of your unsupported assertion, does this "statistic" imply that 90-95% are doomed to fail no matter what?

Most people try their darndest, and still fail.

I'm one of 'em! I've failed plenty. It remains to be seen whether my present enterprise will wind up on the scrap heap, too. If it does, I'll just scrape up some more capital and have at it again. Ideas are cheap.

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 06:10 AM

5-10%, is it? Leaving aside the accuracy [and consequently, the validity] of your unsupported assertion, does this "statistic" imply that 90-95% are doomed to fail no matter what?

No. What I mean is, that working yourself up from a position of being unemployed, living in a trailer park, broke parents, and no tertiary education or qualifications to a position of middle-class. being-able-to-support-a-family mortgageless material comfort, is neigh-well impossible without a bit of luck, or successful petty crime, or exploiting someone else. Im sure some people have done it. But I doubt they have done it honestly, down to just perseverance, gritted teeth and working legally within the system, instead of stomping on someone else's well-being.

The great American ideal of "you can make anything of yourself, just work hard" shows only the light side of the moon, and not the dark side. Most personal successes of people (think the lawyer who wins the big case by putting the petty theif away, the CEO who outsources his cheap manual labour to the third world) come at the expense of others. This is not even alluded to when people talk about the economic "opportunity" that America supposedly provides. It's truly Darwinian, survival of the fittest. But the "fittest" only means the wealthiest, not necessarily the most intelligent, physically fit, practical, ingenious, constructive. The list of abilities in the previous sentence seem to be of secondary concern to Americans. That is what pisses me off.

aether

31 Mar 2005, 06:31 AM

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 06:35 AM

I saw an online poll once that showed political tendencies for different types. I remember that INTPs were even among blue and red. INTJ's favored red. I belive the poll on this site has INTP's favoring the blue.

Based on my personal theory...J/P probably has more of an impact in political affiliation. S/N is tricky because the N can belong to a highly religious conservative or an ultra liberal hippy. The S is probably more prevalent among women which traditionally, who's votes have gone to the blue states.
:huh:

To be honest I think political inclination is pretty much independent of personality type. It's an environmental thing.

There are some statistics somewhere on the web which broke down voting patterns with MBTI. I think it's on geocities.com/lifexplore or something.

ESTPs are more likely to vote democrat, ESFPs are more likely to vote Republican. Go figure :unsure:
INTPs from my memory were split right down the middle. INFJs were conservative! :eek:

aether

31 Mar 2005, 06:41 AM

To be honest I think political inclination is pretty much independent of personality type. It's an environmental thing.

There are some statistics somewhere on the web which broke down voting patterns with MBTI. I think it's on geocities.com/lifexplore or something.

ESTPs are more likely to vote democrat, ESFPs are more likely to vote Republican. Go figure :unsure:
INTPs from my memory were split right down the middle. INFJs were conservative! :eek:

I think that was the same site that...I remember those similar figures.

On a somewhat related note, Ive also seen personality types compared to nation states. I think that culturally some countries do tend to have more of a certain type of personalities within their borders.

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 06:49 AM

I think that was the same site that...I remember those similar figures.

On a somewhat related note, Ive also seen personality types compared to nation states. I think that culturally some countries do tend to have more of a certain type of personalities within their borders.

There is an element of truth to that.

Let's see. My probably extremely biased opinion
America - ESxx
Australia - ISTx
Canada - xSFx
Russia - Lots of SJs
France - Lots of NFs
Britain - Lots of NTs
Europe - Generally more N than the rest of the world.

aether

31 Mar 2005, 06:53 AM

There is an element of truth to that.

Let's see. My probably extremely biased opinion
America - ESxx
Australia - ISTx
Canada - xSFx
Russia - Lots of SJs
France - Lots of NFs
Britain - Lots of NTs
Europe - Generally more N than the rest of the world.

Latin America lots of F's, according to sites Japan lots of NTs.

This looks like a project...we should have a poll to determine the prevalent personalities in most countries...could help explain their problems...

For example: The Middle East.

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 06:58 AM

Middle east? xSFP without a doubt I would say.

aether

31 Mar 2005, 07:01 AM

Middle east? xSFP without a doubt I would say.

I would venture to say NFJ for the Middle East.

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 07:04 AM

I would venture to say NFJ for the Middle East.

Big call. Big Big call.

That said, Yasser Arafat was an ENFJ. But there is too much SP type violence in the region for it to be characterised anything NF, to my mind. You sir, probably beg to differ.

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 07:24 AM

But I doubt they have done it honestly, down to just perseverance, gritted teeth and working legally within the system, instead of stomping on someone else's well-being.

Because, of course, it's impossible to prosper except at someone else's expense. There is -- as every liberal knows -- only so much wealth in the world: if I have more it must mean that somebody else has less. This is the sort of static, zero-sum logic that underlies much of the erroneous "thinking" of the Left. It's certainly possible to make a buck at someone else's expense, but it's by no means the only way to do it.

The great American ideal of "you can make anything of yourself, just work hard" shows only the light side of the moon, and not the dark side. Most personal successes of people [...] come at the expense of others.

Foul!!

That, I'm afraid, is simply false! MOST personal successes of people come as the result voluntary exchanges in which both [or all] parties benefit by trading that to which they attach a lesser value for that to which they attach a greater value. Such exchanges occur billions perhaps tens of billions of times each day!

This is not even alluded to when people talk about the economic "opportunity" that America [...] provides.

It's not alluded to because it's a falsehood!

It's truly Darwinian, survival of the fittest. But the "fittest" only means the wealthiest, not necessarily the most intelligent, physically fit, practical, ingenious, constructive. The list of abilities in the previous sentence seem to be of secondary concern to Americans. That is what pisses me off.

At the risk of appearing venal, wealth is of primary importance. Consider Maslow's hierarchy: the human being's most pressing needs are for food and shelter. Wealth provides the simplest and most direct avenue to satisfying those needs. Intelligence, physical fitness, practicality, ingenuity, and constructiveness are less useful -- therefore secondary -- in this regard.

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 07:50 AM

Because, of course, it's impossible to prosper except at someone else's expense. There is -- as every liberal knows -- only so much wealth in the world: if I have more it must mean that somebody else has less. This is the sort of static, zero-sum logic that underlies much of the erroneous "thinking" of the Left. It's certainly possible to make a buck at someone else's expense, but it's by no means the only way to do it.
You jump multiple guns, my friend.
I never said it was the only way, but my opinion is that it's the easiest way. People aim to get the biggest payoff for the least effort. That usually comes by taking wealth from other people. Of which you so readily attach a "this defines the liberal philosophy" to. Bullshit. Our current conservative government is the highest taxing in history. "Castles in the air" industries which make money out of human frailty such as the gaming industry, alcohol industry and the legal industry are the most successful at taking money from the already poor. Try as I might, I can't put any "liberal" slant on that. Can you?
Creating wealth, now that requires effort, resources, time and a willingness to be honest with other people. Not a particularly attractive to the stockbroker/corporate lawyer/CEO of a company. So they siphon off money from people who deserve it more into their own pockets. Because they have the power to do so, the legal power to exploit the loopholes, and money to pay goons with knuckledusters if things get hairy.

Foul!!

That, I'm afraid, is simply false! MOST personal successes of people come as the result voluntary exchanges in which both [or all] parties benefit by trading that to which they attach a lesser value for that to which they attach a greater value. Such exchanges occur billions perhaps tens of billions of times each day!

Possibly in the neo-con's utopia. Reality is far more grubby I'm afraid. If I buy a ridiculously overpriced piece of kitchenware from my local department store, I'm paying maybe 10% of the price of the product to the craftsman who made it, 20% to the wages of the department store clerks, transport industry and marketers of the product ,and about 70% to the management salary of the department store chain and the product manufacturer.

It's a top-heavy pyramid. The distribution of wealth is skewed towards the powerful and already rich, who are probably there because they are wealthy already. A philosophy of *pure* wealth chasing will always result in losers. Sure, so does socialism. I believe in capitalism/free markets, but benevolent capitalism i.e. the ability to go easy in one's actions when they see they are doing more harm than good. Wealth chasing in itself will not lead to a better world. Wealth chasing + a healthy dose of intellect and humanitarianism will.

At the risk of appearing venal, wealth is of primary importance. Consider Maslow's hierarchy: the human being's most pressing needs are for food and shelter. Wealth provides the simplest and most direct avenue to satisfying those needs. Intelligence, physical fitness, practicality, ingenuity, and constructiveness are less useful -- therefore secondary -- in this regard.

Of primary importance for you, sure. For me, it's a practical intermediate step to happiness, but it's not the holy grail. Smart and poor is better than rich and dumb, in any situation, for me.

mgb

31 Mar 2005, 08:25 AM

I don't know Serotonin. Unless you start your own business, it seems like your opinion isn't worth very much because you don't really understand. As a liberal is seems you are blind to the conservative money tree and everything you say is just useless rhetoric.

Serotonin

31 Mar 2005, 08:27 AM

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 08:41 AM

You jump multiple guns, my friend.
I never said it was the only way, but my opinion is that it's the easiest way. People aim to get the biggest payoff for the least effort. That usually comes by taking wealth from other people. Of which you so readily attach a "this defines the liberal philosophy" to. Bullshit. Our current conservative government is the highest taxing in history.

When you write about "our" conservative government, and the highest taxes in history, do you refer to conditions in Australia? I have to confess that I am a bottomless pit of ignorance with regard to Australian politics and government, but I view with some skepticism the claim that a "conservative" is responsible for "the highest taxes in history". I find it more likely that a big-spending radical [like, for example, Howard Dean] might be calling himself "fiscally conservative" because he tries to balance runaway spending with equally horrific runaway taxation.

Creating wealth, now that requires effort, resources, time and a willingness to be honest with other people. Not a particularly attractive to the stockbroker/corporate lawyer/CEO of a company. So they siphon off money from people who deserve it more into their own pockets. Because they have the power to do so, the legal power to exploit the loopholes, and money to pay goons with knuckledusters if things get hairy.

You're just a geyser of stereotypes and prejudices, aren't you? What percentage of those villainous stockbroker/corporate lawyer/CEO's have hired goons [with or without "knuckledusters"] in their employ? 90-95%? or more?

====================== edit ========================

Due to power interruptions beyond my control [Central Florida is the lightning strike capital of the world, you know!] The tail-end of my post has vanished into the ether...

Curse the black magicks that operate in these infernal beige boxes!

==================== edit again =======================

Sorry. It took me just a minute to re-construct my ideas... here goes:

Possibly in the neo-con's utopia. Reality is far more grubby I'm afraid. If I buy a ridiculously overpriced piece of kitchenware

You mean: "If I choose to buy [...etc.]", don't you?

[...] from my local department store, I'm paying maybe 10% of the price of the product to the craftsman who made it, 20% to the wages of the department store clerks, transport industry and marketers of the product ,and about 70% to the management salary of the department store chain and the product manufacturer.

If those figures are genuine, and If that's a consideration that really matters to you, then don't buy the item.

It's a top-heavy pyramid. The distribution of wealth is skewed towards the powerful and already rich, who are probably there because they are wealthy already. A philosophy of *pure* wealth chasing will always result in losers.

So the object then is to devise a system in which nobody ever loses anything. Hmmmmm....

Sure, so does socialism. I believe in capitalism/free markets, but benevolent capitalism i.e. the ability to go easy in one's actions when they see they are doing more harm than good. Wealth chasing in itself will not lead to a better world. Wealth chasing + a healthy dose of intellect and humanitarianism will.

"Benevolent capitalism" as opposed to the "malevolent capitalism" that I'm obviously so fond of. I see. Your idea of "benevolent" capitalism sounds a bit too much like the "third way" that the Chinese Communists once tried to pursue, or the "socialism with a human face" that got the Czechs into so much hot water in 1968. Suppose a "wealth chaser" adds an insufficiently healthy dose of intellect and humanitarianism to his pursuits? Who is responsible for deciding how much intellect and humanitarianism is enough? And what is the penalty for the greedy S.O.B. who falls short?

meshou

31 Mar 2005, 08:54 AM

...the human being's most pressing needs are for food and shelter. Wealth provides the simplest and most direct avenue to satisfying those needs. Intelligence, physical fitness, practicality, ingenuity, and constructiveness are less useful -- therefore secondary -- in this regard.All right. Then how can you argue that intelligence physical fitness etc can at all effect wealth in anything but on a fluke basis? Security and ability to succeed are not unrelated.

And a wealth based life sounds really... awful. But whatever creams your twinkie.

meshou

31 Mar 2005, 09:12 AM

Due to power interruptions beyond my control [Central Florida is the lightning strike capital of the world, you know!] The tail-end of my post has vanished into the ether...

Curse the black magicks that operate in these infernal beige boxes!*squintses* Do I know you? *readies tinfoil*

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 09:30 AM

All right. Then how can you argue that intelligence physical fitness etc can at all effect wealth in anything but on a fluke basis? Security and ability to succeed are not unrelated.

I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean...

And a wealth based life sounds really... awful. But whatever creams your twinkie.

Well, wealth isn't necessarily the end in itself, although it can be ["paging Mr. Scrooge..."]. Remember, the top of the pyramid -- the goal -- is self-actualization, but before you can put the capstone in place you have to make sure the foundation is solid.

AXIOM: "All other things being equal, it's better to be wealthy than to be poor."

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #741: "Screw the other things, it's better to be wealthy!"

meshou

31 Mar 2005, 09:37 AM

Well, wealth isn't necessarily the end in itself, although it can be ["paging Mr. Scrooge..."]. Remember, the top of the pyramid -- the goal -- is self-actualization, but before you can put the capstone in place you have to make sure the foundation is solid.That I can agree on. But this money thing is a fickle lover, and about as smart as basing your foundation on a lover. You might go the way of tickertape parades and stock brokers-- pavement-wards. I can be at the top with any amount of money.

Biff_Loman

31 Mar 2005, 11:35 AM

Foul!!

That, I'm afraid, is simply false! MOST personal successes of people come as the result voluntary exchanges in which both [or all] parties benefit by trading that to which they attach a lesser value for that to which they attach a greater value. Such exchanges occur billions perhaps tens of billions of times each day!

There are some really interesting physics models that simulate economic interaction based on the behaviour of gas molecules. I read about this in the latest New Scientist; I'll dig up the reference when I get home.

Anyways: the models (which resemble actual global economic conditions to a surprising degree) demonstrate that wealthier participants in transactions almost always benefit to a greater degree than the less wealthy. Yes, these transactions are "voluntary," but the parameters of the interactions are skewed.

I admire your drive and your determination. I'm not just saying that; I really do. My father is also a "self-made man," so to speak, and I've always admired his drive and ambition as well. From 1984 to the present, he has gone from having a failing electrical business (with 0 employees) to running a small manufacturing concern with 70 employees while simultaneously owning a small farm.

If we don't find a way to tap the wealth and resources generated by this kind of ambition in order to benefit the poor, however, I think we have failed a fundamental moral test.

You're right: economic interaction is not a zero-sum game. But as for the poor: they have NOTHING to offer me. They have nothing to trade. They have no skills, no property, no access to the means of production. They are at a disadvantage from the starting line.

Meanwhile, it is up to the discretion of the government, who depends on the income from the wealthy, to determine such things as minimum wage and to protect workers from exploitation, etc. In Buenos Aires in the 19th century, the taxes on food retail was so high that dockside workers lived off of smuggled food. That's right: the nation's primary exports were wheat and beef, but anyone who tried to set up a shop to sell food to the dock workers was taxed beyond their profitability. A whole section of the city depended on the black market for their very sustenance. The cost of public transit (horse trolleys) was also artificially raised to prevent the poor from gaining access to transportation, lest they conduct their business among the wealthy.

In Victorian England, academic studies were conducted to determine precisely how much a factory worker needed to survive if he bought not a single luxury: no extra clothes, no alcohol, etc. Business owners would set their wages according to this standard, so that the workers would get exactly enough for food, shelter, and clothing - but no more.

This is the logical outcome of the thinking of the right: a world in which opportunity exists ONLY for those who already have money. For those who do not have money, there is no option of working two jobs to build up capital. In fact, the only option is to work oneself twelve hours a day in order to merely get by.

In fact, the net outcome of conservative thought is to shut down opportunity for almost everyone and to make working for one's own interests almost pointless. It seems to me that we're in danger of moving closer to this "ideal," one step at a time.

Phyl T. Mynd

31 Mar 2005, 01:23 PM

There are some really interesting physics models that simulate economic interaction based on the behaviour of gas molecules. I read about this in the latest New Scientist; I'll dig up the reference when I get home.

Anyways: the models (which resemble actual global economic conditions to a surprising degree) demonstrate that wealthier participants in transactions almost always benefit to a greater degree than the less wealthy. Yes, these transactions are "voluntary," but the parameters of the interactions are skewed.

Yeah, but gas molecules don't really make decisions about how they're going to interact with other gas molecules, so maybe the "surprising degree" to which they "resemble" people engaged in economic activity is -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- imaginary.

I admire your drive and your determination. I'm not just saying that; I really do. My father is also a "self-made man," so to speak, and I've always admired his drive and ambition as well. From 1984 to the present, he has gone from having a failing electrical business (with 0 employees) to running a small manufacturing concern with 70 employees while simultaneously owning a small farm.

If we don't find a way to tap the wealth and resources generated by this kind of ambition in order to benefit the poor, however, I think we have failed a fundamental moral test.

There is no need to "find" a way to do that. It has existed for quite some time. It's called "charity". When it's voluntary, it's a fine thing. But when the taxing authority gets involved and it becomes compulsory, then it takes on a degree of perversity too enormous for mere words.

You're right: economic interaction is not a zero-sum game. But as for the poor: they have NOTHING to offer me. They have nothing to trade. They have no skills, no property, no access to the means of production.

If they have nothing else, they have their labor. This they can exchange -- if they have some wisdom -- for skills, or property, or access to the "means of production" [shades of Marx and Engels! :shock:]. If the laborer lacks wisdom he can expend his labor to acquire beer, cigarettes and scratch-off lottery tickets.

Meanwhile, it is up to the discretion of the government, who depends on the income from the wealthy, to determine such things as minimum wage and to protect workers from exploitation, etc.

IMPORTANT NOTE: When translating from Left-speak "exploitation" should be read as: "an honest day's work".

In Buenos Aires in the 19th century, the taxes on food retail was so high that dockside workers lived off of smuggled food. That's right: the nation's primary exports were wheat and beef, but anyone who tried to set up a shop to sell food to the dock workers was taxed beyond their profitability. A whole section of the city depended on the black market for their very sustenance. The cost of public transit (horse trolleys) was also artificially raised to prevent the poor from gaining access to transportation, lest they conduct their business among the wealthy.

I'm sorry, but you lost me... this example is meant to illustrate that government is a good thing?

In Victorian England, academic studies were conducted to determine precisely how much a factory worker needed to survive if he bought not a single luxury: no extra clothes, no alcohol, etc. Business owners would set their wages according to this standard, so that the workers would get exactly enough for food, shelter, and clothing - but no more.

In such an environment, a wise employer could have his pick of the very best, brightest, most productive workers, leaving his competition to make do with the dregs. The conspiracy of brutes necessary to maintain such a situation, and the ease with which a single decent employer might upset it, argues against such a system ever having existed at all, certainly not in the extreme form you describe.

In any case, this is not 19th Century England. Try reading a little less Marx and a little more Milton Friedman. Free to Choose, after more than 20 years, is still one of my favorites. George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty is darn good, too!

This is the logical outcome of the thinking of the right: a world in which opportunity exists ONLY for those who already have money. For those who do not have money, there is no option of working two jobs to build up capital. In fact, the only option is to work oneself twelve hours a day in order to merely get by.

Hyperbole alert! If you're working twelve hours a day to "merely get by", your problem has little to do with society's economic system.

In fact, the net outcome of conservative thought is to shut down opportunity for almost everyone and to make working for one's own interests almost pointless. It seems to me that we're in danger of moving closer to this "ideal," one step at a time.

Serotonin

1 Apr 2005, 02:19 AM

When you write about "our" conservative government, and the highest taxes in history, do you refer to conditions in Australia? I have to confess that I am a bottomless pit of ignorance with regard to Australian politics and government, but I view with some skepticism the claim that a "conservative" is responsible for "the highest taxes in history". I find it more likely that a big-spending radical [like, for example, Howard Dean] might be calling himself "fiscally conservative" because he tries to balance runaway spending with equally horrific runaway taxation.

Yes, in Australia. The difference is that Labor is more likely to spend on health and education, but also useless "cultural symposiums" where socialites drink a lot of champagne and wank lyrical about our supposed wealth of artistic talent we have in this country :thumbdow:.

The Liberal party (who are actually the conservatives, yes it's weird :wacko: are more likely to spend taxes on defence, corporate welfare, immigration policy.

You're just a geyser of stereotypes and prejudices, aren't you? What percentage of those villainous stockbroker/corporate lawyer/CEO's have hired goons [with or without "knuckledusters"] in their employ? 90-95%? or more?

This was a "last resort" thing, but no I wouldn't put it past some businesses. They are more likely to be aggressively litigious towards anyone who threatens their sacred profits.

You mean: "If I choose to buy [...etc.]", don't you?

If those figures are genuine, and If that's a consideration that really matters to you, then don't buy the item.

Then I wouldn't be buying anything first hand. You might call it stingy, I call it thrift.

So the object then is to devise a system in which nobody ever loses anything. Hmmmmm....

Yes a pipe dream. But hopefully that should be what we are working towards. We should at least have creative i.e. non-welfare solutions at preventing poverty. Mentoring, counselling, economic social workers for instance. People who help the unemployed find jobs.

"Benevolent capitalism" as opposed to the "malevolent capitalism" that I'm obviously so fond of. I see. Your idea of "benevolent" capitalism sounds a bit too much like the "third way" that the Chinese Communists once tried to pursue, or the "socialism with a human face" that got the Czechs into so much hot water in 1968. Suppose a "wealth chaser" adds an insufficiently healthy dose of intellect and humanitarianism to his pursuits? Who is responsible for deciding how much intellect and humanitarianism is enough? And what is the penalty for the greedy S.O.B. who falls short?

You seem to think that wealth is the only thing that matters and if everyone doggedly pursues it at the expense of everything else then society will be better for everyone. This is wrong for the reasons in my previous post.
And stop trying to straw man me with these ridiculous communist assertions! This pathetic tactic is a favourite with conservative bloggers and webforumers who think that "anyone to the left of me is a commie bastard". It's shallow, untrue, inward-looking and destroys any kind of chance of understanding. I am not a communist, I am not a socialist. Get it into your skull. I accept the capitalist system and will live within it, but desire for it to have the embellishment of a "human" dimension, i.e. corporations who act like model citizens, with both rights and responsibilities.
If they violate these responsibilities, then they get punished, just like any person would.
I would hope that most people in corporate structures have the ability to look outside their "specific interest" mindset and see what effect their actions have on the world outside their office. It's just like being a citizen. You look at the great mass of different agendas of people walking down the street and ask yourself: How can I negotiate what I want with all these people while acting in a manner of goodwill towards them?
An idea for you Phyl T. Mind: read "The Doubter's Companion" by John Ralston Saul. Very Good.

Biff_Loman

1 Apr 2005, 11:38 AM

Yeah, but gas molecules don't really make decisions about how they're going to interact with other gas molecules, so maybe the "surprising degree" to which they "resemble" people engaged in economic activity is -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- imaginary.

This statement is not logical.

1) If a model proves to be an accurate predictor/simulation of reality, it stands to reason that it has some validity. The model has no feelings and no agenda.

2) "Necessity" is more important than choice. I would choose against using cars and public transit, as they both consume non-renewable resources. However, they are the only convenient methods of transporting myself long distances; there are no viable alternatives, at least not according to my criteria.

In the developing world, individuals often have the choice of producing a product of value to us (say, pretty flowers) at great effort for almost no benefit to themselves. The alternative, however, is starvation!

There is no need to "find" a way to do that. It has existed for quite some time. It's called "charity". When it's voluntary, it's a fine thing. But when the taxing authority gets involved and it becomes compulsory, then it takes on a degree of perversity too enormous for mere words.

Charity does not work in the real world - clearly. I'm certain that there are poor people in Florida. My guess is that they are in Miami. They probably live without health insurance and many other benefits. However, I can't help but notice that many rich people also live in Florida. Why don't they devote their resources to helping the poor?

People don't work that way. The real perversion is allowing people to hoard resources desperately needed by others.

If they have nothing else, they have their labor. This they can exchange -- if they have some wisdom -- for skills, or property, or access to the "means of production" [shades of Marx and Engels! ]. If the laborer lacks wisdom he can expend his labor to acquire beer, cigarettes and scratch-off lottery tickets.

I fail to understand why you used an emoticon in response to my use of a phrase originally used by Marx. I'm not referencing Satan. I see no need for you to allow your emotion to cloud your judgment.

Yes, many poor waste their small surplus. But others struggle to support children and families and to provide for their children's education. As Meshou has pointed out, however, the hope of education is becoming more and more slim.

As for the actual means of production: what kind of business would you recommend for the desperately poor? This is not a rhetorical question. You claim you did it.

IMPORTANT NOTE: When translating from Left-speak "exploitation" should be read as: "an honest day's work".

I don't understand how you keep interpreting me as some kind of leftist zealot. I merely aim to be pragmatic.

One example of exploitation would be a current proposal in the British Columbian government to eliminate minimum wage for new immigrants for their first Canadian job. Immigrants may very well be forced to work for wages that are not commensurate with their needs, at least until they get a different job.

Gotta run. I'm not through with you yet.