Excellent Sam Harris Article

[hiyymer]

JOZeldenrust, fair points.
I'd still disagree about scientific morality, but I don't really know enough to make any sort of argument about it.

(some operationalized definition of) pleasure or ...(some operationalized definition of) suffering

If one exists. Our brains don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's suffering unless they are a "we". Jesus said to give up your "we"s and follow him. It isn't happening. There's no mystery here. Life is irrational. Sam Harris doesn't seem stupid. He just seems misguided. No one is going to tell "them" how to reduce "their" suffering, even if it were possible to make it happen without a large nuke.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Think of your life. How meaningful is it without "we" and "they"? Sam Harris and his detractors are talking about what we "all" should do about it, but the problem is that "they" don't think "we all" should do what "we" think "we all" should do about it. It doesn't get much more circular than that. You can't make a difference from the point of view of rationality, because then you need a "right" answer and that's just a power trip that goes nowhere. The only way to make a difference is do what you WANT to do about it and enroll others by your word and your actions. MLKJr's "dream" speech is inspiring because he only talks about what he wants, and not about what any "we" or "they" "should" do. "Should" needs reasons, but life inside the mechanism isn't rational.

[sandinista]

Ah, the average joe.

The average joe is a fucking moron.

Indeed? Well that just so happens to be my opinion of Mr. Harris.

agreed, Harris is by far the dimmest of the recent "celebratory atheists". His book "The End of Faith" was painful, simply awful.

[.Morticia.]

Oh Dear.

Seems I have stumbled upon yet another huffpo liberal apologist.

So Sam, that's all very nice, but....

What conclusions can you come to regarding the causes of our economic plight

and further, what do you propose that we, the masses, do about it?

btw, nice board.

[Hermit]

A New Year's Resolution for the Rich

I am aware that a proposal of this kind is bound to seem quixotic. But what's to stop the wealthiest Americans from sponsoring a 21st Century Renaissance?

It doesn't just seem quixotic. Exceptions notwithstanding, wealthy people simply are not philanthropic. That is why the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening. Harris' proposal to improve the situation amounts to no more than an appeal to the rich to "be nice". Fat fucking chance of that happening in the majority of cases.

The only way to eliminate the obscene gap between the absurdly rich and the desperately poor, between those who own 200 million dollars' worth of paintings or vintage cars and the million children who starve to death every year is to nationalise the means of production. That means instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn entails a violent revolution on a global scale, for the capitalist pigs and their bourgeois running dogs will not give up their ill-gotten privileges voluntarily. Isn't that right, Sandinista?

[hiyymer]

A New Year's Resolution for the Rich

I am aware that a proposal of this kind is bound to seem quixotic. But what's to stop the wealthiest Americans from sponsoring a 21st Century Renaissance?

It doesn't just seem quixotic. Exceptions notwithstanding, wealthy people simply are not philanthropic. That is why the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening. Harris' proposal to improve the situation amounts to no more than an appeal to the rich to "be nice". Fat fucking chance of that happening in the majority of cases.

The only way to eliminate the obscene gap between the absurdly rich and the desperately poor, between those who own 200 million dollars' worth of paintings or vintage cars and the million children who starve to death every year is to nationalise the means of production. That means instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn entails a violent revolution on a global scale, for the capitalist pigs and their bourgeois running dogs will not give up their ill-gotten privileges voluntarily. Isn't that right, Sandinista?

I guess rich people are irrational.

[devogue]

A New Year's Resolution for the Rich

I am aware that a proposal of this kind is bound to seem quixotic. But what's to stop the wealthiest Americans from sponsoring a 21st Century Renaissance?

It doesn't just seem quixotic. Exceptions notwithstanding, wealthy people simply are not philanthropic. That is why the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening. Harris' proposal to improve the situation amounts to no more than an appeal to the rich to "be nice". Fat fucking chance of that happening in the majority of cases.

The only way to eliminate the obscene gap between the absurdly rich and the desperately poor, between those who own 200 million dollars' worth of paintings or vintage cars and the million children who starve to death every year is to nationalise the means of production. That means instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn entails a violent revolution on a global scale, for the capitalist pigs and their bourgeois running dogs will not give up their ill-gotten privileges voluntarily. Isn't that right, Sandinista?

There are times when I would gladly embrace such an idea.

I was reading John Arlidge's excellent article in The Sunday Times the other day about the concept of "Richistan" - the super rich now inhabit a world in which they don't dwell on nationality or borders like us mere mortals. Humanity is treated as so many pawns - I think the thing that struck me most was the super-rich man who observed that Asia's workforce is becoming increasingly well educated, but they cost 10 times less than the work force in the West. He said that workers in the West should do ten times more work (impossible) or just simply accept what was happening.

I thought to myself, accept what? Who is winning, and who is losing here? Do standards of living in the West have to plummet unimaginably while those in poorer countries increase immeasurably? Is that a bad thing (personally, I think not - spread the happiness, I say: we're not going to starve.).Then I thought, can't this happen without these disgusting oligarch's influencing the direction and pocketing gigantic gains at everyone else's loss? Or is it impossible to share wealth when national interest is involved?

[JOZeldenrust]

A New Year's Resolution for the Rich

I am aware that a proposal of this kind is bound to seem quixotic. But what's to stop the wealthiest Americans from sponsoring a 21st Century Renaissance?

It doesn't just seem quixotic. Exceptions notwithstanding, wealthy people simply are not philanthropic. That is why the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening. Harris' proposal to improve the situation amounts to no more than an appeal to the rich to "be nice". Fat fucking chance of that happening in the majority of cases.

The only way to eliminate the obscene gap between the absurdly rich and the desperately poor, between those who own 200 million dollars' worth of paintings or vintage cars and the million children who starve to death every year is to nationalise the means of production. That means instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn entails a violent revolution on a global scale, for the capitalist pigs and their bourgeois running dogs will not give up their ill-gotten privileges voluntarily. Isn't that right, Sandinista?

There are times when I would gladly embrace such an idea.

I was reading John Arlidge's excellent article in The Sunday Times the other day about the concept of "Richistan" - the super rich now inhabit a world in which they don't dwell on nationality or borders like us mere mortals. Humanity is treated as so many pawns - I think the thing that struck me most was the super-rich man who observed that Asia's workforce is becoming increasingly well educated, but they cost 10 times less than the work force in the West. He said that workers in the West should do ten times more work (impossible) or just simply accept what was happening.

I thought to myself, accept what? Who is winning, and who is losing here? Do standards of living in the West have to plummet unimaginably while those in poorer countries increase immeasurably? Is that a bad thing (personally, I think not - spread the happiness, I say: we're not going to starve.).Then I thought, can't this happen without these disgusting oligarch's influencing the direction and pocketing gigantic gains at everyone else's loss? Or is it impossible to share wealth when national interest is involved?

If productivity per invested dollar is higher in Asia then in the rest of the world, jobs will shift towards Asia, as is happening. Increased demand means the price of labour in Asia will increase to the point where productivity in Asia is as expensive as in the rest of the world.

In an ideal market, there would be a continuous equilibrium, but no market is ideal. The global market for labour is less then perfectly transparant, and logistic limitations mean that shipping jobs overseas requires time, effort and initial investments, so there's a lag between the supply side (increased level of education, increased level of mechanisation etc.) and the demand side (companies employing Asian workers).

Over time regional submarkets will adjust. Productivity in Western countries will increase to reflect the higher ost of labour here, or the cost of labour in Asia will rise to match he cost of labour in Western countries, or a bit of both. Productivity in Western countries can easily rise to ten times the productivity of workers in Asia, as long as Western countries shift production to markets where they can produce more value. That means that production of physical goods will be shifted to Asia, but research and development, education and financial services are still areas where Western countries can justify their higher wages.

More and more markets are going global. The self-sufficient state is a thing of the past.

[Tero]

I blame Reagan.

[hiyymer]

I blame Reagan.

The question isn't whether the rich are rich, but whether they got that way on a level playing field. We used to have well regulated transparent markets with a tradition of minimal government interference. We now have a situation where the rich are using their power to game the system on every level. Yes Reagan sold us a bill of goods. There's government regulation and then there's government regulation. It's not all bad. When I worked on Wall Street in my youth, the SEC was very powerful and very active. It's a pathetic excuse for a regulator today, and duh look what happened.

[.Morticia.]

I blame Reagan.

The question isn't whether the rich are rich, but whether they got that way on a level playing field. We used to have well regulated transparent markets with a tradition of minimal government interference. We now have a situation where the rich are using their power to game the system on every level. Yes Reagan sold us a bill of goods. There's government regulation and then there's government regulation. It's not all bad. When I worked on Wall Street in my youth, the SEC was very powerful and very active. It's a pathetic excuse for a regulator today, and duh look what happened.

On what planet was this?

[Tero]

Harris is right onthe money with radical islam. Every time you pump gas you are sponsoring jihadists.

[hiyymer]

On what planet was this?

earth

[mistermack]

I've been saying for years that the super rich need to pay more tax.
And the problem with taxing the super rich lies in contries like Switzerland, and other tax-havens, who prostitute themselves to the super rich for a tiny fraction of their wealth, which goes a long way, in small countries.
The only way to tackle this is for the biggest economies to get together, rather than beg individually for the capital of the mega rich. Capital is only any good, if you can use it, and spend it. For that, the super rich NEED US !!
So get together on taxing the super rich, we will have to in the end. If they move their capital to places like Switzerland, it should be taxed heavily when they move it back, unless they can prove that they have paid their tax.

My own hobby horse it to make the biggest tax a death duty, almost 100%.
That way living people aren't being taxed on their work.
.

[Atheist-Lite]

“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.” HL Mencken

I'm astounded how he managed to solve the deeply embedded and very complicated socio-economic problems of the USA on just one sheet of paper.