Agreed. I was more speaking to the "Dr. Evil rule the world megalomaniac" type greed.
No coffee yet, short on words at the moment.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agreed. I was more speaking to the "Dr. Evil rule the world megalomaniac" type greed.
@pmclaine - I would advise you to read Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society in order to understand why exactly markets work better than non markets. It is probably the finest explainer of their advantages, and how we understand pricing that you can find without going into higher mathematics. It isn't easy, and if you run into trouble, I am happy to help explain.
It is a conundrum that market economics is actually value neutral. We always want the useful and the good to match. It is much easier to see our positions as not only right but also most moral. Economics does not afford us that luxury. It is why we have all been accused to seeing the world in the harsh realities of the market vs in love for our fellow humans. As I said, Marxism is really built on that concept. He admits readily that capitalism has made for great wealth, but it doesn't care for the common man. Now, we know that is incorrect because we see common man fair better under market systems, but that doesn't arrogate to the market any sort of morality. It is simply a more useful system. In the same way that a back hoe is better than a shovel is better than your hands.
We can also be right in our opinions on the basis of morality and virtue, but those are often distinct arguments, Again I recommend to you the above Hayek paper to understand why it is that these things work better. Cheers.
Agreed. I was more speaking to the "Dr. Evil rule the world megalomaniac" type greed.
No coffee yet, short on words at the moment.
As usual, spot on...I have those "meglomaniacs" in mind in my last comments to Choid.
I didnt name them by name but one rhymes with bates, one reminds me of a clown name, one used his being on the spectrum to improve something hoping he could get pictures of the naked chicks he would never otherwise see in person, one is just a cranky old man that lives totally opposite of the way he preaches we should live, one is a bohemian beatnik piece of shit, and the worst of all learned his trade from the absolute most evil as a young boy happily sending people to their deaths.
I would say it is more complex than that, but basically that is the gist of it.I agree markets work better than authoritarian controlled economies.
We are not arguing that point.
All Hayek is saying is that a large broad population comes to a consensus solution better than a small planning board that is only able to react to information they have on hand.
Conventional wisdom, "universal intuition" will come to the right answer while the small planning board can only act based on its limited knowledge base.
he goes beyond Adam Smith in that Smith only uses two variables to reach equilibrium Hayek feels that a free market can bring in variables not even considered to provide efficiency and greater good.
Its like the Bear Pit of economic truth. One individual in here can spew some real BS but when the entire community puts their focus on the issue each individual addition gets a step closer to truth by either eliminating a false path, finding a substitute path, or perhaps delivering an unrelated substitute that fills the need created by the original problem.
You can never separate the motivations for joining the market and the abuses it can bring.
Jonas Salk did great things for humanity without taking personal gain.
That was such because the culture cultivated that type of attitude.
What ails our current capitalist system isn't so much the system its that we have allowed the corruption of our culture.
That corruption, suppression of good citizenship and Patriotism was cultivated and is intentional.
We have had fabulously wealthy Americans in the past and what are they now remembered for.......they built libraries, supported the arts, funded hospitals and public improvements.
Today we have fabulously wealthy and they are creating a record of tyranny, stripping people of their civil rights, aligning themselves with political parties to hide truth and build schemes that enrich them further.
This is all at our expense.
Gettys, Carnegies, Smithsons etc were also cocksuckers to some extent but this latest batch is really despicable.
The same people asking to be the controllers of the market are the same that are destroying the free market.
I would say it is more complex than that, but basically that is the gist of it.
At this point I would not read Adam Smith as an economist, but as a political philosopher. Much in the same way I would not read Newtonian physics as being more than a great building block to current knowledge. But with Smith it is more because he lived before the marginal revolution, which is the basis for our understanding of economic systems.
Much of the rest of what you write is true. I mean, our current fabulously wealthy are generous to causes that mean a lot to them. That is pretty hard to deny. Look at the Benioff hospital, all the money going in to modern art museums etc. And they are still young, giving tends to accelerate with age.
And I do agree that they are acting badly in many ways, though I am not sure I see it all the same as you.
But these aren't the arguments we were having. We were arguing over whether hard work or utility gets paid, and whether UBI is necessarily worthless because it is paid in fiat money, or if UBI is definitionally fiat money. Or whether we should feed wild animals. On these points I stand with everything I said. It is all based in sound reasoning and firm foundations, while I would suggest your arguments are based on the idea that you don't like these things. I don't like them either, at least not much, but as I have said many times in here, and have often been called a commie for saying so, it is better to understand things as they are, even if you don't like them, then to simply call them names and think that that will get you anywhere.
Best.
Aside: You, inadvertently, perfectly described the modern democrat in the last half of your last sentence. Well done.I would say it is more complex than that, but basically that is the gist of it.
At this point I would not read Adam Smith as an economist, but as a political philosopher. Much in the same way I would not read Newtonian physics as being more than a great building block to current knowledge. But with Smith it is more because he lived before the marginal revolution, which is the basis for our understanding of economic systems.
Much of the rest of what you write is true. I mean, our current fabulously wealthy are generous to causes that mean a lot to them. That is pretty hard to deny. Look at the Benioff hospital, all the money going in to modern art museums etc. And they are still young, giving tends to accelerate with age.
And I do agree that they are acting badly in many ways, though I am not sure I see it all the same as you.
But these aren't the arguments we were having. We were arguing over whether hard work or utility gets paid, and whether UBI is necessarily worthless because it is paid in fiat money, or if UBI is definitionally fiat money. Or whether we should feed wild animals. On these points I stand with everything I said. It is all based in sound reasoning and firm foundations, while I would suggest your arguments are based on the idea that you don't like these things. I don't like them either, at least not much, but as I have said many times in here, and have often been called a commie for saying so, it is better to understand things as they are, even if you don't like them, then to simply call them names and think that that will get you anywhere.
Best.
And? Do you think I am a Democrat or something?A
Aside: You, inadvertently, perfectly described the modern democrat in the last half of your last sentence. Well done.
Don't know what you are, or care. Just sayin'.And? Do you think I am a Democrat or something?
^^^Human Nature its the law.
Whose human nature? Rousseau's noble savage? Locke's pre societal man? The conception of the ancients or the moderns? Maybe Christian man, or homo economicus. The point being that there is no understood concept of what human nature is, and to assert that human nature rules is simply an exercise in question begging.^^^
This.
Period.
Full stop.
Prove that wrong.
I'll wait.
(to be continued)
Democrats have spent 150 years trying to talk the Black population into forgetting that they were the ones who actually enslaved them ... by creating welfare handouts that have enslaved them again.
A great line from the Matrix - Understanding in not a prerequisite for acceptance. I don't need to understand human nature to accept it. To ignore it would be a fool's errand.Whose human nature? Rousseau's noble savage? Locke's pre societal man? The conception of the ancients or the moderns? Maybe Christian man, or homo economicus. The point being that there is no understood concept of what human nature is, and to assert that human nature rules is simply an exercise in question begging.
i don't understand your question.Remind me please......what was LBJs quote?
Perhaps I'm getting too close to the X with you @theLBC but why haven't interned American citizens of the WWII period, peeps that also got a full UnConstitutional fucking, ever been used as weapons by the DemoCommunists?
George Takei seems to be the only one beating that drum but he grinds a few axes.....seems to be his thing.
I basically agree with everything you said, especially that we need to start fighting back with our brains and our words, but my comment was meant to point out something you already did in your post. We all have different understandings of what human nature is, which makes it difficult to appeal to it as a universal truth. But that is quite a conundrum, isn't it? We are appealing to something that we believe to be universal, but we all have a different view of what it is. Rosseau's or Locke's or whomever's doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is that they are different, just like yours and mine.A great line from the Matrix - Understanding in not a prerequisite for acceptance. I don't need to understand human nature to accept it. To ignore it would be a fool's errand.
I'd submit we're not talking theories and concepts here, we're talking reality, which you've stated before, you prefer, so, here goes... and pardon my pedestrian ways, I'm not a learned man when compared to some, but I've lived enough years and seen enough to affirm my viewpoint that "human nature" factors in to how we interact and what usually dictates any given outcome - there is no exception, and there are very few hard and fast rules, because of our individualities.
MY viewpoint, as shaped by the world and experiences I'VE lived. My reality is different than yours, thus, my viewpoint WILL be different than yours - both are valid as they relate to our personal experiences. Mine is no more right than yours, and vice versa. You can argue concepts and theories until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, reality is where we live and die. I don't live my life by "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts", I live by what I've learned through my own baptism of fire (nope, that little old lady SHOULDN'T have been driving the wrong way on the interstate at night with her headlights off and hit us head on, but it happened).
And you, naturally, live your life by your own experiences. That's not a concept or a theory, but a reality.
I'm nice to people, they're usually nice back. I'm an asshole to people, they're usually an asshole back to me. Why is that? Human nature. No need to get all philosophical about it, it manifests itself all day every day since the dawn of time.
Now, back to the intent of the thread... In my opinion, and I reserve the right to be wrong and pleasantly surprised, "our" side, i.e. conservatives, Republicans, whoever is opposed to the ideologies and policies of the newly sworn in administration, should use facts as truth as history and reality have demonstrated, in our arguments against them - pretty basic. Except, we're not dealing with people that share our human nature tendencies. To the left, the ends justify the means, and morality and ethics don't factor in. If they want to accomplish something, they have no problem abandoning decency because they believe that they are in the right. FSA to the goal line by any means necessary.
That notion is reprehensible to most of the like minded people I know - painting with a broad brush and purposefully manipulating the meanings of words to craft a seemingly innocuous, virtuous statement that on it's face seems reasonable, but in fact, insults the opposition to the core. The MSM and their pundits have mastered it, and I'd submit, have radicalized their core consumers to the point of rabid hatred of their opposition. Talk about inciting violence. Hell, we watched it all throughout 2020. But don't believe you're lying eyes or ears, no no no no. You're "mis-characterizing" what this is all about we've been told. Yet, it angers most of us to the bone. And why is that? Human nature? You see wrong, you think it's wrong, but the other side is telling you you're just not smart enough to understand it... so, on top of being lied to, and having elitists talking down to you, now they call you "dumb" without using the actual words. Raise your hand if that pisses you off? Ooops, was that your human nature showing?
And how do they pull it off?
I'd suggest once again - by preying on human nature.
Blah blah blah, wish I could type faster and my hands could keep up with my feeble mind.
Anyway, I don't need to know anything about Rousseau's noble creature or Locke's pre-societal man to know that the opposition has struck a blow to our Republic with their rhetoric, and it's time we stop relying on our plate carriers and AR's, but use truth, facts, history, demonstrable results, and a keen understanding of human nature to win the upcoming battles against them and their ideas.
Gotta take the dog out, back in a bit. Your turn.
Fuck, you type fast!I basically agree with everything you said, especially that we need to start fighting back with our brains and our words, but my comment was meant to point out something you already did in your post. We all have different understandings of what human nature is, which makes it difficult to appeal to it as a universal truth. But that is quite a conundrum, isn't it? We are appealing to something that we believe to be universal, but we all have a different view of what it is. Rosseau's or Locke's or whomever's doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is that they are different, just like yours and mine.
If I were to point to a moment when this all went wrong, I would point to Herbert Marcuse, and his understanding that the best way to disrupt American society was through sexuality. Before 1960 or so, nobody really equated their fundamental nature with their sexual behavior, and America was basically a pretty prudish nation. We believed in freedom, hard work, etc. These were what we saw as the essential nature of good life. Marcuse sought to turn that on its head, and what we see now is that, to the left, the entire concept of our freedom, and our nature, is embodied in our sexuality. My wife likes to call this a decadent society that sees freedom as being "what drugs you take before you fuck, who you fuck, and how to kill your baby after you fuck." Crude but to the point. While there are other things they preach, the great trick of the left is turning our countries understanding of human nature into these three things. Note that while they talk a lot about race, their most potent tactic for changing young minds is marijuana legalization, her point number one.
Anyway, this seems off topic, but it isn't. My contention is that the left has been so successful because they have redefined what a society sees as the core of the human, human nature itself. And I would tell you that it is useless simply to appeal to human nature as why things have to be a certain way, because our current understanding of human nature, frankly, sucks balls. Maybe that is what we need to fight for, which is what I meant by the earlier comment was question begging. The most important question, really, is what is it, and how do we make others see it our way.
I have a lot more to say about this, but it is probably boring to everybody but me, so I will leave it there unless prompted to continue.
Ha ha.....i don't understand your question.
the japanese were interned by executive order from a democrat scum racist. you think dems can use this?
george is not that different from the shit stuck to his dick.
i hardly believe they could use their own racist atrocities to get support.Ha ha.....
There is an aggrieved population that was injured for racist reasons.
I would think as part of their divide and conquer methodology they would want to try to create a voting block there.
Issue is that segment of Americans is way conservative and not ever willing to sell their autonomy for govt servitude.
I think Trump really dented the communist wall of the racial voting identity.
First Republican in about 60 years to increase support from traditionally communist voters.
As an aside the breadth of the Internment order of Japanese, Italian and German citizens was disgusting but what is not preached these days is that there were also events that somewhat backed the hysteria. In WWI German saboteurs took out an ammunition dock in New York, Pearl Harbor had the Niihau Incident that was kept secret for a long time.
What happened to west coast Japanese was tragedy though that has never been made whole. I could only imagine the value in todays dollars of the possessions they lost. The $24K or so they were paid in the 80s isnt close to cutting it.
How did they respond?
They became the 442nd RCT and kicked some serious ass for the country that wronged them.
Edit/add - If you are not familiar with LBJs quote regarding gaining votes for 200 years its reprehensible and shows the true nature of political party politics......That fucking douche would have meeting with subordinates while he was on the shitter just to make them feel small. Also stole a silver star for himself when guys were bleeding for theirs.
i hardly believe they could use their own racist atrocities to get support.
my uncle was one, but i'll take no credit for his loyalty or bravery.
i thing that irks me is that the nazi party was parading through the streets of chicago while my relatives were being rounded up like enemies.
i think he would win.
Isn't ironic that the VP's family had over 200 slaves in their Jamaican sugar Plantations? (It's fact so it should be OK to post)Democrats have spent 150 years trying to talk the Black population into forgetting that they were the ones who actually enslaved them ... by creating welfare handouts that have enslaved them again.
If we get some software writers and hackers, lots of last minute printers...i think he would win.
Ladies and gentlemen, no need to worry, things are already better...
![]()
America's mood has improved on coronavirus, jobs, and more as President Biden era begins
Yahoo Finance, in conjunction with The Harris Poll, has been asking Americans about their outlook on the future since last summer.finance.yahoo.com
Wonder if that poll included the.... what, couple grand.....of pipeline workers he put out of work on his first day.....Ladies and gentlemen, no need to worry, things are already better...
![]()
America's mood has improved on coronavirus, jobs, and more as President Biden era begins
Yahoo Finance, in conjunction with The Harris Poll, has been asking Americans about their outlook on the future since last summer.finance.yahoo.com
By all means, you and @HiDesertELR continue.I basically agree with everything you said, especially that we need to start fighting back with our brains and our words, but my comment was meant to point out something you already did in your post. We all have different understandings of what human nature is, which makes it difficult to appeal to it as a universal truth. But that is quite a conundrum, isn't it? We are appealing to something that we believe to be universal, but we all have a different view of what it is. Rosseau's or Locke's or whomever's doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is that they are different, just like yours and mine.
If I were to point to a moment when this all went wrong, I would point to Herbert Marcuse, and his understanding that the best way to disrupt American society was through sexuality. Before 1960 or so, nobody really equated their fundamental nature with their sexual behavior, and America was basically a pretty prudish nation. We believed in freedom, hard work, etc. These were what we saw as the essential nature of good life. Marcuse sought to turn that on its head, and what we see now is that, to the left, the entire concept of our freedom, and our nature, is embodied in our sexuality. My wife likes to call this a decadent society that sees freedom as being "what drugs you take before you fuck, who you fuck, and how to kill your baby after you fuck." Crude but to the point. While there are other things they preach, the great trick of the left is turning our countries understanding of human nature into these three things. Note that while they talk a lot about race, their most potent tactic for changing young minds is marijuana legalization, her point number one.
Anyway, this seems off topic, but it isn't. My contention is that the left has been so successful because they have redefined what a society sees as the core of the human, human nature itself. And I would tell you that it is useless simply to appeal to human nature as why things have to be a certain way, because our current understanding of human nature, frankly, sucks balls. Maybe that is what we need to fight for, which is what I meant by the earlier comment was question begging. The most important question, really, is what is it, and how do we make others see it our way.
I have a lot more to say about this, but it is probably boring to everybody but me, so I will leave it there unless prompted to continue.
Talking to them, yes. Having them understand and comprehend is a definite NO.Talking to liberals?
Is that even a thing ?
UBI will be wastefully spent by impulsive recipients...then what ? Give a raise??FWIW, UBI is preferable to a lot of other social programs. Milton Friedman wrote a lot about this and why. It is problematic when it is in addition to other programs, but by itself it shouldn't be so quickly discarded.