Ha Ha ! STUPID AMERICANS !!!

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

But that's exactly what you imply when you bitch about rich people having an unequal opportunity at economic success. They don't, they just have a higher starting point, but they can fail as miserably as anyone else, or they can succeed.

That higher starting point will make sure of a much higher average success rate; some indeed may fail, but their average outcome will be higher, purely because daddy was a rich man, not because of their innate ability.

What you want is to drag down the wealthy to the level of the poor because you think it's unfair that they have a head start in the race to prosperity,

I haven't suggested any measure whatsoever; so far, I have simply established that the rich will maintain their established positions through the generations. In the US today, they can do that more effectively than any hereditary aristocracy of the past. What, if anything, should be done about that situation is another thing altogether.

Also, nothing I have said goes against the value to society of a true, innovative entrepreneur, who, as you say, create jobs and economic progress by their activities.

My main concern is not the garnering of wealth in itself, but the way that this wealth is often used to influence the political process. I would like to see a barrier placed between the super wealthy plutocrats, and the political process, to reduce the inherent corruption of the present system.

[pErvinalia]

You're wasting your time, Jim. Seth will never admit to the failings in his logic.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... archy.html

[Hermit]

Even though I'm a republican, I have to admit that the monarchy is there by consent, even if it hasn't been voted for.
I would point out though, that that consent is artificially engineered by constant indoctrination of the public by the BBC and the other news media.

I would change "engineered" to supported, or at the most, maintained. Indoctrination is also somewhat too strong a term, I think...

While "indoctrination" doesn't fit, "supported" and "maintained", while true, are inadequate. The controllers of the mass media are fully aware that they can manipulate what and how people think. Reports get a particular spin, sometimes subtle, at other times brazen, in order to do so. This aspect is not really captured by the use of "supported" and "maintained".

A man was in New York's central park, when a dog went wild and attacked a young boy. The man was able to grab the dog by the neck, pulling it off the boy and choking it to death. A reporter for the New York Times comes to interview him, congratulating him on his act of heroism. He suggests the headline: "NEW YORKER SAVES THE LIFE OF A YOUNG BOY!" The man told him: "I'm not from New York." Ok then, how about: "AMERICAN HERO SAVES THE DAY." The man said 'I'm not American'. "Then, where are you from?" asked the reporter. "I'm from Pakistan" the man answered. The next day the headline read: "MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST STRANGLES DOG IN CENTRAL PARK".

I disagreed with "engineered" because it implied that pro-royal sentiment was being created de novo. In both Britain and Australia, a deep vein of sentimental attachment to royalty has existed for a long, long time, and is probably held by a majority. Current media practice may well act to maintain that, but it does not need to create it.

Yes, once again in case you missed it, I do agree that neither "engineered" nor "indoctrinated" are the right words for what the controllers of the main stream mass media do, but neither are "supported" and "maintained". They are fully aware of the fact that they are manipulating public opinion by the means of the slant of the reportage they publish. Rupert Murdoch even admitted as much just before and again during the Whitlam era when he was just a big fish in that little pond called Australia.

"Manipulation" and "spin" do not imply creation of de novo attitudes about the monarchy either, but those words describe somewhat more accurately and comprehensively what the media are doing than "supported" and "maintained". You can manipulate and spin in order to strengthen an already existing feature.

Overt and covert bias in favour of the monarchy is not just support for and maintenance of the monarchy. It is one of the many ways it manipulates what and how the plebs think, and the overall aim is to reduce the calls for social, political and economic change - true conservatism at its core.

[JimC]

You're wasting your time, Jim. Seth will never admit to the failings in his logic.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... archy.html

One day, he may have a "Road to Damascus" moment...

(yes, the Devil can quote scripture...)

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Yes, once again in case you missed it, I do agree that neither "engineered" nor "indoctrinated" are the right words for what the controllers of the main stream mass media do, but neither are "supported" and "maintained". They are fully aware of the fact that they are manipulating public opinion by the means of the slant of the reportage they publish. Rupert Murdoch even admitted as much just before and again during the Whitlam era when he was just a big fish in that little pond called Australia.

"Manipulation" and "spin" do not imply creation of de novo attitudes about the monarchy either, but those words describe somewhat more accurately and comprehensively what the media are doing than "supported" and "maintained". You can manipulate and spin in order to strengthen an already existing feature.

Overt and covert bias in favour of the monarchy is not just support for and maintenance of the monarchy. It is one of the many ways it manipulates what and how the plebs think, and the overall aim is to reduce the calls for social, political and economic change - true conservatism at its core.

I take your point, although we are perhaps arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin...

In essence, whatever the choice of words you favour, I agree there is a section of the community and its media backers who find monarchist sentiments useful to their self interest, and do what they can to foster such attitudes.

However, it is not monolithic - there is also, expressed in other elements of the media, a deep cynicism about the royals; not enough at the moment to lead to a republic, but still expressing a strong opposing view. The spin is not all conquering nor all pervasive...

[Hermit]

In essence, whatever the choice of words you favour, I agree there is a section of the community and its media backers who find monarchist sentiments useful to their self interest, and do what they can to foster such attitudes.

That is precisely why "supported" and "maintained" are woefully inadequate descriptions of what the mass media do. It is also why my objection to the use of those words is not akin to a scholastic argument about the number of dancing angels on the tip of a pin. The choice of words used to describe any particular event or circumstance has very practical consequences in the real world. I was hoping you'd see the obvious intention to effect just that in the joke I related earlier.

However, it is not monolithic - there is also, expressed in other elements of the media, a deep cynicism about the royals; not enough at the moment to lead to a republic, but still expressing a strong opposing view. The spin is not all conquering nor all pervasive...

The controllers of the media can always point to the opinion piece of some leftie they publish on a regular basis on page 14 in order to claim that their publications are balanced, and when push comes to shove they have two other evasions. They will claim that their articles merely reflect what the public is interested in knowing, ignoring that they play a significant role in determining what the public is interested in knowing and their attitudes about them. Then they say something like: "We must be getting it right. Why else do publications espousing madcap views keep failing? Why else can't alternative views get the sort of popular traction ours get?" Well, for the same reason; the main stream media are not principally providers of information. They are opinion-makers.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

But that's exactly what you imply when you bitch about rich people having an unequal opportunity at economic success. They don't, they just have a higher starting point, but they can fail as miserably as anyone else, or they can succeed.

That higher starting point will make sure of a much higher average success rate; some indeed may fail, but their average outcome will be higher, purely because daddy was a rich man, not because of their innate ability.

There are two socialist failures in your argument. Your complaint that a rich person will have a "higher average outcome" because daddy was rich and not because of the "innate ability" of the scion is an example of socialist "playing field leveling" wherein socialism hammers down any nail sticking up above the others because egalitarianism is a fundamental belief of socialism. To allow one person to enjoy the fruits of labor he has not himself performed is a moral wrong in Marxism, which is why Marx believed that income based on return on investment is not "labor" and therefore the gains are ill-gotten and may be justly seized by the leaders "on behalf" of the proletariat because the wealthy investor is a non-working, non-contributing "reactionary" and social leech. Your argument clearly demonstrates how deeply this belief and agenda has been driven into your psyche by long-term indoctrination and propaganda. It's so deeply ingrained that you don't even appear to know it's happening. But I see it clearly.

When you say "average outcomes" you are fully confirming my entire argument that you are interested in equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity. You manifest the very zero-sum reasoning I mentioned before in that statement. This so-called "logic" is based on a philosophical belief that the success of one person is a threat to the stability of the proletariat because it breeds resentment and jealousy and goes against the fundamental principle of socialism, which is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This founding Marxist principle is what drives socialist envy, jealousy and class-hatred against the economically privileged or the economically successful.

But that's not what the US is about. The US does not subscribe to the Marxist zero-sum fallacy, and "equal opportunity" means exactly, and only that, the opportunity to succeed or fail on your own merits without social or governmental barriers that prevent the successful entrepreneur from flourishing off of the labor inherent in creating and marketing his better Maoistrap.

What you want is to drag down the wealthy to the level of the poor because you think it's unfair that they have a head start in the race to prosperity,

I haven't suggested any measure whatsoever; so far, I have simply established that the rich will maintain their established positions through the generations.

So what? How does their wealth interfere with the ability of Jose Blow to build and market a better Maoistrap and rise to the highest social and economic levels through his own effort and innate ability?

Clue: It doesn't. In fact it facilitates such economic and social mobility by providing a pool of capital that Jose can call upon to finance his Maoistrap factory and hire workers to staff it, which then employs ten or a hundred or a thousand more people than were employed without Jose's innovation and Junior Warbucks' capital investment.

If Junior is stripped of his inherited wealth based on the specious Marxist notion that he doesn't "need" it, then his fortune will vanish into the seething proletarian mass like a cup of water into the ocean and nobody's ship will rise, and Junior will become a dependent-class proletarian taking more from the collective than he inputs because he's fucking livid about having his money taken from him.

Jose can't get financing for his factory because investment is not "labor" and because profit from investment is prohibited by Marxist principles, nobody wants to bother to even reveal that they have wealth they could invest, lest it be taken from them during the hammering-down of the square pegs into the proletarian round holes in the name of egalitarianism.

So in the end, Junior loses everything and becomes a social and economic liability, Jose's better Maoistrap is never produced and therefore no consumer benefits from his innovation, all those people he would have gainfully employed don't get jobs and themselves become (or remain) burdens on the collective.

All because fuckwitted Marxists can't stand the idea of someone else having more stuff than they do.

Fucking morons.

My main concern is not the garnering of wealth in itself, but the way that this wealth is often used to influence the political process. I would like to see a barrier placed between the super wealthy plutocrats, and the political process, to reduce the inherent corruption of the present system.

Plutocrats defend their financial interests through political activity, which benefits the economic interests of every single person the plutocrat employs or trades with. Everybody wins. Consumers get the products and services they want at a cheaper price because the price hasn't been larded up with ass-clown Marxist wealth redistribution taxes, workers have jobs that pay more the better the overall economy is, and the plutocrat goes right on investing his profits in new ventures that repeat the cycle of economic and social elevation.

I'd much rather have plutocrats running things than fuckwit Marxists with delusions of egalitarianism, who will rape and pillage everyone in order to achieve their own self-serving, self-empowering political and social agenda.

At least plutocrats are about making money, and thus are highly predictable in their behavior.

Marxists are like playing ping-pong with balls filled with nitroglycerin. It might sound like a good idea, but it will inevitably blow up in your face and kill you deader than a doornail. Just ask the 100 million Marxism has murdered in the prior century how Marxism worked out for them.

[Seth]

You're wasting your time, Jim. Seth will never admit to the failings in his logic.

That's because there are no failures in my logic. There are failures in your argumentation however, the principle one being that you are completely incapable of making a rational argument to begin with, much less cogently rebutting my arguments with facts, reason and logic. All you can do is throw poo at the window and shriek ineffectively until someone throws you a banana, which you then promptly stick up your ass, which you consistently mistake for your mouth.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

I recall an interview that was published some decades ago, with a very rich man. He said that the first million was the hardest to make, since thereafter, he could afford to hire expert people to grow his fortune.

If a person inherits wealth, it is very easy for him/her to grow that wealth, since he/she has all kinds of expertise working to achieve that. This is what a poor person cannot do. If you inherit wealth, then with all the clever people you will have working for you, you would have to be a blind blithering idiot to lose that wealth. Of course, some people are exactly that.

On the other hand, if you do not inherit wealth, it is much, much harder to accumulate money, since you have to learn all the techniques for yourself, and make all the sacrifices, and do the hard work yourself.

A lot of people who inherit wealth and grow their fortunes, do so on the backs of other people's hard work. In other words, they are pure parasites.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, equality of opportunity also means equal access to markets. You are an idiot if you think a poor person has the same level of access to markets as a rich person does. I know you aren't an idiot, and it leads me to the same conclusion that I am always led to with these economic debates with you: that is, you are clearly arguing from a position of selfishness. That is, your rhetoric suits YOUR OWN wellbeing in your current state, and not that of anyone else. If you were poor, you absolutely wouldn't argue this, as you know that what you argue for is a further stacking of the system in favour of the rich and influential. I just don't understand why you waste so many words on this. You could say all this every time with a few simple sentences. Everyone can see where you are arguing from. You aren't cleverly obfuscating your real intent. We all know your MO. Why carry on the charade?

[Seth]

To Seth

I recall an interview that was published some decades ago, with a very rich man. He said that the first million was the hardest to make, since thereafter, he could afford to hire expert people to grow his fortune.

Thereby employing them and spreading his wealth around.

If a person inherits wealth, it is very easy for him/her to grow that wealth, since he/she has all kinds of expertise working to achieve that.

So what?

This is what a poor person cannot do.

Any of the millions of poor people who have done exactly that would be happy to disabuse you of your silly notion.

If you inherit wealth, then with all the clever people you will have working for you, you would have to be a blind blithering idiot to lose that wealth. Of course, some people are exactly that.

So what? It's his fortune, he can lose it if he wants. And what exactly do you think happens to all that wealth that he pisses away? Do you think he gets bills and burns them in his fireplace? Nope, he spends profligately on luxury items and self-indulgences, each and every one of which employs one or more people to provide for him, thus directly benefiting the employees by giving them jobs and an income...not to mention an object lesson in how not to fritter away your fortune. That's an invaluable education.

On the other hand, if you do not inherit wealth, it is much, much harder to accumulate money, since you have to learn all the techniques for yourself, and make all the sacrifices, and do the hard work yourself.

So what?

A lot of people who inherit wealth and grow their fortunes, do so on the backs of other people's hard work. In other words, they are pure parasites.

No, they are "employers." They employ people. They pay them wages and offer them benefits commensurate with their value to the employer in growing his fortune. But it's his fortune, not theirs, and they are not entitled to redistribute it to their benefit merely because they don't have as much as he does. They can make a good living off of him if they have the entrepreneurial skill to make themselves valuable to him.

Or they can sit on their fat asses smoking crack, eating Twinkies, watching Jerry Springer and waddling to the post office once a month to pick up their welfare check...and stay that way until they die of complications of diabetes.

It's all up to them. There is nothing standing in their way on the path to fame and fortune except their own inadequacies.

Parasites take, employers employ and pay, which supports workers.

[Seth]

Seth, equality of opportunity also means equal access to markets. You are an idiot if you think a poor person has the same level of access to markets as a rich person does.

Wrong. Equal opportunity does NOT mean equal access to anything. "Equal access" is Marxist doublespeak for "equality of outcomes" and is used to rationalize wealth redistribution by force. Equal opportunity is a lack of artificial barriers to social and economic mobility, not market forces, circumstance, bad judgment, bad luck or just plain sloth.

I know you aren't an idiot, and it leads me to the same conclusion that I am always led to with these economic debates with you: that is, you are clearly arguing from a position of selfishness.

Or I'm arguing from a position of philosophical understanding and intellectual strength that permits me to look at things objectively and tear your silly arguments to shreds with the greatest of ease.

That is, your rhetoric suits YOUR OWN wellbeing in your current state, and not that of anyone else.

You think so do you?

If you were poor, you absolutely wouldn't argue this, as you know that what you argue for is a further stacking of the system in favour of the rich and influential.

Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me.

I just don't understand why you waste so many words on this.

Because it entertains and educates me and keeps my reasoning faculties sharp for use where it really counts.

You could say all this every time with a few simple sentences.

Unlike some people I know, I'm not a boring pedant.

Everyone can see where you are arguing from.

You can huh?

You aren't cleverly obfuscating your real intent. We all know your MO. Why carry on the charade?

Well, for one thing it annoys the ever-living fuck out of you...

[pErvinalia]

If a person inherits wealth, it is very easy for him/her to grow that wealth, since he/she has all kinds of expertise working to achieve that.

So what?

A poor person doesn't have that opportunity! Welcome to the debate...

[pErvinalia]

Seth, equality of opportunity also means equal access to markets. You are an idiot if you think a poor person has the same level of access to markets as a rich person does.

Wrong. Equal opportunity does NOT mean equal access to anything. "Equal access" is Marxist doublespeak for "equality of outcomes" and is used to rationalize wealth redistribution by force. Equal opportunity is a lack of artificial barriers to social and economic mobility, not market forces,

Market forces ARE an artificial barrier! Stop the fucking charade..

I know you aren't an idiot, and it leads me to the same conclusion that I am always led to with these economic debates with you: that is, you are clearly arguing from a position of selfishness.

Or I'm arguing from a position of philosophical understanding and intellectual strength that permits me to look at things objectively and tear your silly arguments to shreds with the greatest of ease.

Bollocks. Your arguments have continually been taken apart and shown to be hollow. It's always the same progression. Start out with some specious libertarian ideology and then end with a bunch of "so what's" and "adapt or die's". It's fucking idiotic. And you know it.

Everyone can see where you are arguing from.

You can huh?

Of course I can. And so can everyone else. You promote a selfish ideology as that is what currently suits you the best. It's fucking blatantly obvious!

You aren't cleverly obfuscating your real intent. We all know your MO. Why carry on the charade?

Well, for one thing it annoys the ever-living fuck out of you...

It doesn't annoy me in the slightest, as I know that everyone can see through it. You're actually a pretty funny and social guy when you aren't bleating on with all this idiotic bollocks. I'm suggesting this as much for your benefit as others.