|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » The Gipper keeps on winning

Default The Gipper keeps on winning

February 28th, 2012, 07:31
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
And I suppose deregulation didn't have anything to do with current crisis either? You guys keep flogging this dead horse despite all the evidence to the contrary. Do you even realize just what you are proposing?
No regulations means no health and safety protection, no environmental protection, no child labor laws, no minimum wage etc, etc, etc.
Us guys? Who is 'you guys'? It is only me. You may want to read my statement again, I was talking about the current crisis.

I haven't advocated anarchy. I have advocated the 'less is more' doctrine, if you would like to call it that. But, I'll play along anyway. Contrary to what many people think, I believe groups of humans tend towards morality and organization. That's why I think we have advanced to the point we are at. In a perfect society, I don't think we would need laws to compel people to be fair to others, and people would behave that way naturally. I think a rotten business will fail because it will be unable to gain or retain valuable workers and because communities will hold them in low regard and refuse to buy their products. We have choices with what we will do after all. But let's just say that our society has not reached that level of perfection, or perhaps I am wrong and laws are always necessary - why must it be done on such a large level rather than things being enforced more on a community level? Why do I have to pay for Social Security I don't want for 310,999,999 other people? Or conform to laws that have never applied to me or make my day-to-day life unnecessarily difficult? If these laws and systems were administered individually on a community-based level, not only would the programs be more cost effective, I would have the opportunity to choose to live in a community where the rules and taxes more appropriately conform to the lifestyle I want (you could, for example, find a community that provides more social programs in exchange for higher tax rates). The only need for national taxes that I see would be to provide protection from foreign invasion in the form of a military (also to step in in instances where a community has infringed upon basic human rights/ignored contractual obligations). I see many benefits to that without any drawbacks.

And what makes you think you will be on the winning side in this nightmare? You might end up shoveling asbestos for 3 bucks per hour
It sounds like you don't believe that a capitalist utopia can exist where even the lowest people on the bell curve live comfortably (what Reagan would have referred to as Reaganomics). And while I think this is possible, and that the poor today are vastly better off than they were 100 years ago, it is within the realm of possibility that you are correct. I would be willing to take a chance that I could end up shoveling asbestos for $3/hr if I got the opportunity to see if my vision would turn out. And you know what, I would work as hard as I possibly could shoveling that damn asbestos.
Last edited by rossrjensen; February 28th, 2012 at 07:50.
rossrjensen is offline

rossrjensen

Sentinel

#41

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 585

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 08:48
While you might want to indulge in wishful thinking Ross I'd rather remember what was happening when laws and regulations weren't there to protect people. Remember "robber barons"? Have you any idea how corrupt political system in XIX century America was? Did you know that in first half of XIX century children constituted 50% of the workforce in cotton industry? And have you heard about "wage slavery"?

Why do you have to obey laws that you feel don't concern you… Well, because your views are views of a minority. So, while your right are protected, it's not up to you to decide which rules should govern us all…
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#42

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,999

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 10:14
Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Obviously, there were some ethical boundaries that were over-stepped in the process as well, but that's not a political issue.
What do you mean, it's not a political issue? The way I see it it has political issue written all over it.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
I don't know the context, so I don't really understand what that quote is trying to say.
It is trying to say that lack of funds is a bigger limit on freedom than lack of liberty. While I'm not sure if that's 100 % correct it makes an important point I believe most pepole miss in the whole freedom debate.

Libertarians say pepole will be free if we only ensure nobody can force them to do anything (IE maximize liberty). I believe that will lead to large chunks of the population being dirt poor with no means to change that, and thus that large chunks of the population will be unfree.

And that's why I believe redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor increases freedom.

"But you have the right to keep all the payment you get for what you create!"

Money is power. And power leads to freedom. So if you want to maximize freedom, you can't let the rich keep all their incomes, because that's going to leave the poor powerless.

Here's a look of how I look at ruling and ethics on a state level. Let's divide the population into three blocks. One block is the bottom 40 % of the population, sorted on income. Let's call them the poor. Another block is the top 10 %, let's call them the rich. Then there's the 50 % in between, let's call those the middle class.

Now, wealth redistribution is going to favor the poor at the expense of the rich. No wealth redistribution favors the rich at the expense of the poor. Which scheme should we choose for our government? Well, imagine that once you've chosen, you're going to ramdomly switch life with one person in the population. What you then know is that there's a 40 % chance that wealth redistribution will favor you and a 10 % chance that it will hinder you. But no wealth redistribution means only a 10 % chance that it will favor you and a 40 % chance it will hinder you. In that light, which scheme seems like the best scheme to maximize your chances of living a good life? Which scheme do you think would maximize your potential freedom?

"But if I end up in the bottom 40 % I can work hard and get to the top 10 %!"

Not really. The example is designed so that the whole percentage is measured over a lifetime. Thus it's not a measure of pure income, it's also a measure of ability. If you start out with a low income but loads of ability you'll probably be able to work your way up to at least the middle class and maybe even to the rich. But if you're in the bottom 40 %, that most likely means you started there, and you're not intelligent, disciplined or shrewd enough to work your way up.

But if you want to be able to work your way from the bottom 40 %, you should probably favor redistribution as well, since that's the scheme where something is done to even the gap in ability between the bottom and the top (since those born in the top, by virtue of getting education and a good upbringing, usually ends up with higher ability as well).

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#43

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 13:36
It's really a difference of fundamental philosophy, and yours looks just as stupid to us as ours looks to you.

Libertarian approach- set minimal rules and let everyone play the game. There will be winners and there will be losers, but everyone played by the same simple rules so their only limitations were their own motivation and skill. Thus, a fair system.

Social dem approach- set oppressive rules so there is no game. There can be no losers because that makes us cry. Winners are evil and must be drug down. The system forces equal results, so everyone is lifted/drug to the middle. Thus, a fair system.

Obviously, that's broad brush stuff with all the problems associated with that technique, but I think it communicates the point.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 14:11
And while we're at it, let's dig into our proverbial asbestos shoveller, shall we?

First off, you're presuming there's such a job. That's cool. That means there's a need for asbestos shovellers, right? So some poor bastard has to do the job. There's simply no way around that basic fact, right? So, you can't complain about the job (nor the "shit job" archetype it represents) because whether it's shit or rainbows and furry teddybears, it's still a function that must be completed.

Next, you're presuming that, because it's a shit job, it's going to pay like a shit job. Perhaps in your over-regulated, equality mandating world, that would be the case, but your complaint is with the free market system, so you can't really impose the faults of your system upon this solution. Now, you've defined our friendly asbestos shoveller as a couple things- a poor dumb bastard that's paid a pittance.

Let's deal with the pittance first. If the job truly is a "shit job", then nobody wants to do it, right? Definitions and all? So, how does an employer fill his need for an asbestos shoveller? He offers the pittance cuz it's a shit job that requires no skills, right? But nobody's gonna take that shit job for a pittance, because it's a shit job. Definitions and all? So, the employer has no choice but to raise the offered wage until some dumb bastard can be convinced that his strong back and weak mind is being sufficiently compensated. Thus, your "subsistance wages for shit jobs" argument doesn't hold water. Unless you impose the problems of your system upon our solution.

And how about our poor dumb bastard? Well, at the moment, you're claiming his only avenue in life is shovelling asbestos, right? So, would that not serve as motivation to improve either his motivation or his skills? Or perhaps he chooses to stay right where he's at because that's the easy answer. So maybe, just maybe, the presence of shit jobs serves as motivation for the poor dumb bastards of the world to better themselves. Whooda thunk!

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 17:17
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Let's deal with the pittance first. If the job truly is a "shit job", then nobody wants to do it, right? Definitions and all? So, how does an employer fill his need for an asbestos shoveller? He offers the pittance cuz it's a shit job that requires no skills, right? But nobody's gonna take that shit job for a pittance, because it's a shit job. Definitions and all? So, the employer has no choice but to raise the offered wage until some dumb bastard can be convinced that his strong back and weak mind is being sufficiently compensated. Thus, your "subsistance wages for shit jobs" argument doesn't hold water. Unless you impose the problems of your system upon our solution.
As history has shown, it will end up paying a pittance because there will be hordes of pepole who aren't qualified for anything besides shovelling asbestos. Which means voicing a want for a higher salary leads to nothing but getting fired and being replaced with one of those poor, starving, desperate peons hanging out on the street outside begging to shovel asbestos. Not because shoveling asbestos is an attractive job, but because it's a hair more attractive than starving to death.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
And how about our poor dumb bastard? Well, at the moment, you're claiming his only avenue in life is shovelling asbestos, right? So, would that not serve as motivation to improve either his motivation or his skills?
When you spend 18 hours a day shoveling asbestos in order not to starve to death, do you really think there's any marigins for improving your motivation or skills?

And how do you expect someone who shovels asbestos for a pittance to improve his skills anyway? This, by the way, is why there are hordes of pepole who aren't qualified for anything besides shovelling asbestos.

Here is a good article on what it's like being poor in America today. What makes you think any of those things will change for the better if we scale down on the state?

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#46

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 18:17
Then you can't consider it a shit job, Ubereil. If you've got hundreds of sad bastards that are qualified for nothing else, then we're damn lucky such a job exists for them. Obviously, we're both talking in wild generalities here and that's going to leave holes in everyone's arguments, but, really, cmon.

If shovelling asbestos needs to get done, SOMEONE will have do it. Say we could pay the dude a million dollars a day. Does that make it less of a shit job? You've defined it as a shit job- you can't change parameters now, but that's a damn nice living there. How about if we pay $100k a day? How about $1k a day? See? It simply becomes a question of balance. Now who is most appropriate to decide when that balance is met? Government? Ubereil? Or the sad bastard that will actually hold the shovel?

Your answer is that you or government is somehow better qualified to make that decision that the guy that's actually going to do the work and suffer the job. Arrogance? "My brother's keeper"? What authority do you have to declare that you know what's good for our sad bastard and that you will force your judgment upon him?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#47

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 18:29
While you might want to indulge in wishful thinking Ross I'd rather remember what was happening when laws and regulations weren't there to protect people.
Yes, I wish to consider a state of perfection and think of how we can achieve that state. First of all, we are not in a pure state of anything, nor have we ever been, but I get that you're saying that the more laissez faire approach that was typically embraced a century ago is more akin to my idea of perfection, and I suppose that's true. That being said, I think you will agree that society in general has made great advancements in the economic welfare of all people over the past few centuries, and that welfare has been increasing at nearly an exponential rate. You probably attribute this to the adoption of rules and regulations (unemployment insurance, minimum wage, medicaid, other forms of social welfare) whereas I see it as a natural movement of the entire bell curve (below) to the left - meaning that the probably and definitely less than others depicted still have a reasonably good life.



We can agree that social democracy is more prevalent throughout Europe than it is in the United States, correct? Generally speaking, there is higher levels of taxation and more social welfare programs. Take the following quote from a study last year into consideration:

Spoiler


Why do you have to obey laws that you feel don't concern you… Well, because your views are views of a minority. So, while your right are protected, it's not up to you to decide which rules should govern us all…
Well then views of the entire two-state region of the United States in which I have lived in over the last few years are "views of a minority" then. This is exactly why I was advocating governance on a local level rather than people from the other side of a rather large and varied region telling me how to live. I can understand and respect your values, and think there ought to be a community you can live in which expresses you socially and economically. I only ask for the same for myself. How is this not a good compromise for all of us?

Ubereil:

What do you mean, it's not a political issue? The way I see it it has political issue written all over it.
Ethics=/=politics. I am sure Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Fascists, Anarchists, and Communists have all been responsible for ethical violations.

Money is power. And power leads to freedom. So if you want to maximize freedom, you can't let the rich keep all their incomes, because that's going to leave the poor powerless.
As I said to you, money is nothing more than a tool. It can be used by a person as a leverage to gain power, but that is certainly not how I would use it if I had it in abundance. The poor have power in numbers. In fact, I could counter with an argument that those that use wealth as a leverage for political sway are seeking to keep the playing field level - maintain the status quo.

I cannot agree that power->freedom however. I see freedom as an inalienable human right, perhaps the only inalienable human right, that all people are entitled too.

As for the rest of your statement, I am familiar with your sentiments and values. Dte is absolutely right, it is a difference of fundamental philosophy. I believe the system itself is fair, thus equal opportunity is fair, not equal outcome. You believe the system is unfair, so equal outcome must be attained through other means.

As history has shown, it will end up paying a pittance because there will be hordes of pepole who aren't qualified for anything besides shovelling asbestos.
Again, this ignores progress in society. It's akin to "as things were, they always will be".

Here is a good article on what it's like being poor in America today. What makes you think any of those things will change for the better if we scale down on the state?
Funny read. Nonetheless, it doesn't exactly tell the whole story. I would be considered impoverished right now. In fact, I currently struggle with a couple of the items in that article. I am well educated, but I chose to give up a good professional job in order to try and begin my own business. It's a start up and hasn't been an overnight success like most businesses, and I have to work serving tables at a local brewery in order to keep afloat. However, I also have two pretty nice computers, Internet, own my own home, and am able to eat when I'm hungry. I have put a good amount of effort into what I've done and I am confident that I will have some success eventually - and I also have time to sit down and play a good RPG a couple times a week. I have made some sacrifices in order to chase something which I think will eventually lead to something greater. It's not impossible to do - my great grandfather immigrated to the United States with nothing and created a million dollar farming operation a century ago, and my dad managed to become fairly successful despite his parents/grandparents dying in a car accident when he was 10 years old and his family literally losing everything his grandfather created because of estate taxes.

dte:

And while we're at it, let's dig into our proverbial asbestos shoveller, shall we?
LOL
Last edited by rossrjensen; February 28th, 2012 at 18:41.
rossrjensen is offline

rossrjensen

Sentinel

#48

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 585

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 18:41
I'm glad somebody caught that, rrj. I've got to admit I was tremendously pleased with myself over it.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 18:51
Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Well the second part of your statement is a clearly debatable subject. You say deregulation is responsible for the Great Recession, I say that government interference with the free market is what ultimately led to the Great Recession. Government believed that Americans were entitled to home ownership, passing legislation to make purchasing homes easier (leading to sub-prime mortgage lending). Everything else that developed stemmed from that - the market adapted by creating new securities, including 'creative' ways to sell mortgages and the development of credit-default swaps. Obviously, there were some ethical boundaries that were over-stepped in the process as well, but that's not a political issue.
WRONG. The repeal of the Glass Steagal act allowed banks to invest in securities, including the crap mortgage based ones, and that caused the failure of the whole world economy. The Glass Steagal act was created to prevent what happened in the Great Depression from happening again. And of course, the idiotic Republicans catering to their greedy rich keepers, led the way to take it off the books… Deregulation was the cause of the avalanche of bank failures.

And has our shitty Republican/Tea Party led Congress done anything to return these regulations so it doesn't happen again? No. Another reason to throw the corrupt bums out.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#50

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,649

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 18:58
As always, you choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, Thrasher. Clinton added power to the urban development banking rules, forcing banks to offer more loans to people unable to pay them, and your friends at ACORN extorted the banks to make sure it happened. There's simply no way around that basic fact.

And, I know you can be forgetful, but CLINTON signed the Glass-Steagal repeal into law.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 19:13
Those facts are irrelevant as usual, DTE. If Glass-Steagall were in place there would not have been the domino effect where a minor downturn in the housing market took down the whole banking system.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall was led by congressional Republicans. You do know that legislation is done by Congress, or have you lost whatever remaining braincells you ever had?
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#52

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,649

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 19:29
Thrasher, don't you think you are taking things a little too extreme with the tone you have have chosen to adopt?

Congress creates legislation, but the president still has to sign the bill for it to take effect. Basic checks and balances. Dte's facts are not irrelevant. He's saying that Glass-Steagall would not have been necessary to prevent the financial meltdown if government hadn't meddled with banks by compelling them to extend loans to "sub-prime" candidates.

Regardless, while the financial meltdown is tied to the mortgage crisis, they are two separate issues that led to the severity of the recession. Glass-Steagall may have had an affect on the financial meltdown, but it wouldn't have changed the mortgage crisis.
rossrjensen is offline

rossrjensen

Sentinel

#53

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 585

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 19:40
Uh no. If the banks had been properly regulated to not invest in speculative devices like the mortgage based securities, the FINANCIAL crisis would not have happened that brought down the "too big to fail" banks world wide. Blaming Clinton for the deregulation is a ridiculous bit of typical Republican dishonest revisionist history to shift the blame, rather than being man enough take responsibility for failed policy.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#54

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,649

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 19:58
It's ok, rrj. The Thrashman and I have a long and glorious history of mutual abuse. He's actually my top "trusted opinion" around here when it comes to games and he's got fairly good taste in music. Unfortunately, politically he's a frothing nincompoop that never saw a leftie party line he wouldn't swallow whole, but what can ya do… He's mean to me, but I'm mean right back so it's all good clean fun.

As to the point, we've been over it with him dozens of times. As he stated, he thinks the Glass-Steagal repeal was the magic arrow and he lays it solely at the feet of republicans, even though the vote to repeal was passed by a huge bipartisan landslide:
After these compromises, a joint Senate and House Conference Committee reported out a final version of S. 900 that was passed on November 4, 1999, by the House in a vote of 362-57 and by the Senate in a vote of 90-8. President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 12, 1999, as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA).
He patently ignores anything related to Clinton's urban development meddling because it complicates his preconceived notion.

In reality (as shown indirectly by the above vote), I'd say both sides were asleep at the wheel with the sub-prime lending push. The dems were catering to their base with no consideration for the financial stupidity of their plan and the repubs were too busy letting business ride the economic gravy train to consider the long term risks of the dems' manipulations.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#55

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 20:02
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Then you can't consider it a shit job, Ubereil.
It takes more than being slightly less shitty than starvation to not be a shit job.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
If you've got hundreds of sad bastards that are qualified for nothing else, then we're damn lucky such a job exists for them.
Why? They'd be even better off if the rest of us could share our abundance with them so they didn't have to slave for 18 hours a day to avoid starvation, so why should this particular be seen as luck? Because they could be slightly worse off?

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
If shovelling asbestos needs to get done, SOMEONE will have do it. Say we could pay the dude a million dollars a day. Does that make it less of a shit job? You've defined it as a shit job- you can't change parameters now, but that's a damn nice living there.
Sure is, and the shoveller's life is substantially better for it (assuming he's still not working 18 hours a day…). Of course, you could stop at around $300 a day and achieve the exact same thing. Assuming we can afford that, which is doubtful. But a minimum that makes for a somewhat livable life at least would surely make asbestos shovelling a lot better.

That is never going to happen if we leave things up to the free market, though. There's too much competition for it.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Now who is most appropriate to decide when that balance is met? Government? Ubereil? Or the sad bastard that will actually hold the shovel?
Call me arrogant, but I believe pepole would rather work 8 hours a day making a decent living so they can afford three meals a day and a place to stay than working 18 hours a day making enough to eat a small piece of bread each day and live in a dirty shed. I mean, for some reason the first option seems better in every single way…

It comes down to knowing what the sad bastard holding the shovel wants though. This the sad bastard holding the shovel knows best. How to get there though, that's something other, better educated pepole are probably better suited to figure out. If it's a group of educated pepole it's even more probable.

rossrjensen:

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Ethics=/=politics. I am sure Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Fascists, Anarchists, and Communists have all been responsible for ethical violations.
That doesn't explain why it's not a political issue. Let me explain how I think: politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions (according to wikipedia - which I agree with here). Ethics is a branch of philososophy that deals with what we ought to do. Now, what we ought to do is rather important when making desisions of any kind and collective decisions are no different.

And that doesn't change because politicians have made poor choices.

Thus saying ethics has nothing to do with politics is a bit like saying winning a hockey match has nothing to do with scoring more goals than the opposition.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
As I said to you, money is nothing more than a tool. It can be used by a person as a leverage to gain power, but that is certainly not how I would use it if I had it in abundance.
I agree, money is a tool. But, just like all tools, being in posession of it increaes your power, since it gives you more that you can do. If you have money you can buy things you want, if you don't you can't. That's power.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
I cannot agree that power->freedom however. I see freedom as an inalienable human right, perhaps the only inalienable human right, that all people are entitled too.
I suspect that's because we have different definitions of freedom. Freedom is your ability to control and affect your life - the easier you have it controlling your surroundings the freer you are. With this definition it's quite obvious why power leads to freedom.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
As for the rest of your statement, I am familiar with your sentiments and values. Dte is absolutely right, it is a difference of fundamental philosophy. I believe the system itself is fair, thus equal opportunity is fair, not equal outcome. You believe the system is unfair, so equal outcome must be attained through other means.
As a consequencialist I don't really care about fairness. It's merely a question of choosing the system that makes pepole as happy as possible.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Again, this ignores progress in society. It's akin to "as things were, they always will be".
Well, if history isn't good enough data, look at the third world.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Funny read. Nonetheless, it doesn't exactly tell the whole story. I would be considered impoverished right now. In fact, I currently struggle with a couple of the items in that article. I am well educated, but I chose to give up a good professional job in order to try and begin my own business.
Not to diminish your problems, but if you have an education you're not in the same league as the guy in the article. There's plenty of you think from having an education that goes beyond the professional skills you've aquired (your ability to learn is enhanced and you also get a lot of bonus knowledge, for instance).

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
It's not impossible to do - my great grandfather immigrated to the United States with nothing and created a million dollar farming operation a century ago, and my dad managed to become fairly successful despite his parents/grandparents dying in a car accident when he was 10 years old and his family literally losing everything his grandfather created because of estate taxes.
That it's not impossible for everyone doesn't mean it's not near impossible for most. Bob Beamon jumped 8,90 meters in long jump in the 1968 olympics. That doesn't mean everyone has what it takes to jump 8,90 in long jumps. It also doesn't mean everyone with the capacity to jump 8,90 in long jumps will.

That your great grandfather had what it took to build a million dollar farming operation from nothing doesn't mean every person who has nothing and doesn't build a million dollar farming operation without help can/could do so. Pepole have different abilities, and some have more abilities than others.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#56

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 20:05
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
As to the point, we've been over it with him dozens of times. As he stated, he thinks the Glass-Steagal repeal was the magic arrow and he lays it solely at the feet of republicans, even though the vote to repeal was passed by a huge bipartisan landslide.
See how DTE likes to shift blame away from Republicans for their irresponsible deregulation policies? Deregulation is what caused the financial meltdown. And deregulation is a Republican plank. Whether or not they convinced democrats and Clinton to sign off on their insidious plans is besides the point. Except that you shouldn't trust them, and be very wary. It's your typical Republican attempt to shift blame and failure to take responsibility. So don't vote for these idiots. I am done.
Last edited by Thrasher; February 28th, 2012 at 20:21.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#57

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,649

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 20:21
Pay no attention to the actual vote numbers—the great and powerful Thrasher has spoken.

Good day, sir. I said good day!

Sorry, occasionally I think that actual historical records might be useful. Silly me. I'll see myself to the door.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 20:23
You quote "Heritage Foundation" to prove your point Ross? A lot of what's stated there is of "yes but…" type but some of their conclusions are outright falsehoods! Smoke and mirrors Ross, smoke and mirrors.
According to this, to be poor in USA is actually something to aspire to! Two cars, cable TV, plentiful, healthy food, healthcare to die for and roomy accommodations! All the schmucks from Europe should move to the USA, a land of milk and honey!

If you believe this shit, it's no wonder that your views are what they are. Or do you WANT to believe this?
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#59

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,999

Default 

February 28th, 2012, 20:36
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
According to this, to be poor in USA is actually something to aspire to! Two cars, cable TV, plentiful, healthy food, healthcare to die for and roomy accommodations! All the schmucks from Europe should move to the USA, a land of milk and honey!
Now we've finally figured out why y'all hate us so much. All that enlightenment and you're still not keeping up with our dirtiest of dirty. It all begins to make sense now.

You know, with all that enlightenment, I bet y'all can figure out a way to build some pretty good boats. Worked pretty well in the past, as I remember. Of course, it ain't like the old days with the fruits of social democracy finally coming ripe—Spain, Italy, and Portugal won't be funding much beyond a bathtub this time around. The French pilgrims will go on strike before the ship even loses sight of land, so they'll probably run out of food long before hitting our shores. The Brits can't be bothered to travel during soccer season. The inland countries are kinda screwed. Perhaps Germany could buy Greece outright to gain a useful coast?


Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
Last edited by dteowner; February 28th, 2012 at 20:48. Reason: too much fun not to expand
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,198
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » The Gipper keeps on winning
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:57.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch