The Liberal Utopia - What if..
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Decent piece grasping with explaining why so many "intellectuals" despise capitalism
I was recently talking to a relative about a friend of mine who has been very successful in business.
“And I’m sure he deserves every penny.” The relative said in a snide way.
“Well, in this case I think absolutely.” I said
“The relative looked at me and said, “I’m just as smart as him. Where are my millions? In fact I’m probably smarter, why should this guy be so rich?”
“Why should one’s level of intelligence determine one’s level of wealth?” (which it often does) I asked.
“Because that’s what’s fair. The smartest people should run things and should be paid more.”
“But what if what one has to offer, even if one is very bright, is not valuable to society at large? Should one be paid more than a stupid guy who has a skill which is in demand?”
“It depends.” My relative replied. “Why should a plumber make more than a teacher? That’s criminal.”
“Why is that criminal? Very few teachers can fix a leak in my basement, and none of them will come out to my house on the weekend. I’m willing to pay quite a lot to get the leak in my basement to stop.”
“But teachers teach our children. Plumbers spend their time elbow deep in ****.”
“Exactly,” I said. “This is why I am willing to pay him and why my plumber is probably not as stupid as you think.”
And then it struck me why so many (and it is a distinct subset) of obviously smart people rail against capitalism. They are jealous. They feel wronged by life. They want the trappings of wealth and don’t understand why despite their genius these trappings have eluded them. After all many of them went to the right schools, checked all the right boxes in life, yet the material success which is their birthright is in the hands of so many who clearly don’t deserve it. How can this be?
......
more at link http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-more-than-me-and-im-smart-capitalism-stinks/
I was recently talking to a relative about a friend of mine who has been very successful in business.
“And I’m sure he deserves every penny.” The relative said in a snide way.
“Well, in this case I think absolutely.” I said
“The relative looked at me and said, “I’m just as smart as him. Where are my millions? In fact I’m probably smarter, why should this guy be so rich?”
“Why should one’s level of intelligence determine one’s level of wealth?” (which it often does) I asked.
“Because that’s what’s fair. The smartest people should run things and should be paid more.”
“But what if what one has to offer, even if one is very bright, is not valuable to society at large? Should one be paid more than a stupid guy who has a skill which is in demand?”
“It depends.” My relative replied. “Why should a plumber make more than a teacher? That’s criminal.”
“Why is that criminal? Very few teachers can fix a leak in my basement, and none of them will come out to my house on the weekend. I’m willing to pay quite a lot to get the leak in my basement to stop.”
“But teachers teach our children. Plumbers spend their time elbow deep in ****.”
“Exactly,” I said. “This is why I am willing to pay him and why my plumber is probably not as stupid as you think.”
And then it struck me why so many (and it is a distinct subset) of obviously smart people rail against capitalism. They are jealous. They feel wronged by life. They want the trappings of wealth and don’t understand why despite their genius these trappings have eluded them. After all many of them went to the right schools, checked all the right boxes in life, yet the material success which is their birthright is in the hands of so many who clearly don’t deserve it. How can this be?
......
more at link http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...-more-than-me-and-im-smart-capitalism-stinks/
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) grapples with same idea of post above (this was printed in Reason Mag, no link available) --
It’s sort of where people stand in the social hierarchy, and if you live in a more business-oriented society, like the United States has been, then you have these businesspeople, who they don’t judge to be very intelligent or well-educated, having lots of money, and they begin to buy political power with it, and they rise in the social hierarchy, whereas the really intelligent people, the intellectuals, are less important. And I don’t think they like that. And I think that’s one of the main reasons why the intellectuals have usually disdained commerce: they haven’t seen it, the dynamic, creative force, because they measure themselves against these people, and they think they’re superior, and yet in the social hierarchy they’re not seen as more important. And I think that drives them crazy.
It’s sort of where people stand in the social hierarchy, and if you live in a more business-oriented society, like the United States has been, then you have these businesspeople, who they don’t judge to be very intelligent or well-educated, having lots of money, and they begin to buy political power with it, and they rise in the social hierarchy, whereas the really intelligent people, the intellectuals, are less important. And I don’t think they like that. And I think that’s one of the main reasons why the intellectuals have usually disdained commerce: they haven’t seen it, the dynamic, creative force, because they measure themselves against these people, and they think they’re superior, and yet in the social hierarchy they’re not seen as more important. And I think that drives them crazy.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
Roads have always been built to markets, not just roads to create roads that go nowhere unless you are talking about bridges that go nowhere.......
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Modern VZ represents the difference between theory and practice.
Or maybe they recognize that capitalism is sometimes manipulated to reward things that are not truly valuable. The financial markets are a notable example.
Well if they are indeed smart why wouldn't they pursue wealth via the available channels? If you desire wealth, and you're smart, it's not hard to figure out what to do.
zork
2,500+ Posts
How did Mao treat the intellectuals?
http://www.massviolence.org/chronology-of-mass-killings-during-the-chinese-cultural
http://www.massviolence.org/chronology-of-mass-killings-during-the-chinese-cultural
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The thing about real capitalism is that it is less easy to manipulate than say a centrally planned economy. Certain people make tons of money because a multitude of independent people make self-interested decisions to buy a product or service or a few people buy a very highly valued product or service.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Re-reading this thread it becomes obvious why the "liberals" and "conservatives" are so polarized against each other.
The reason the US of A is so great is because we don't have an ideologically pure form of socialism or capitalism. History demonstrates that neither work in their purest forms. Each has to have a check and balance against the other. When we do move in either direction too much the balance becomes eschew. For example, too much welfare removes incentive for recipients to support themselves. Conversely, limited or no regulation of the banking industry allows for intentional market manipulation. In both cases corruption and greed have an overriding influence. Both need to have a consequence associated with bad behavior.
The reason the US of A is so great is because we don't have an ideologically pure form of socialism or capitalism. History demonstrates that neither work in their purest forms. Each has to have a check and balance against the other. When we do move in either direction too much the balance becomes eschew. For example, too much welfare removes incentive for recipients to support themselves. Conversely, limited or no regulation of the banking industry allows for intentional market manipulation. In both cases corruption and greed have an overriding influence. Both need to have a consequence associated with bad behavior.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
No nation but the swings of "deregulation" like in the banking industry have been the closest we've come and in many cases have been positive but have been disastrous in other areas. For example, the most recent recession was strongly influenced by the unregulated CDO market in which banks were carrying billions of dollars of liability off the books.
Capitalism was pretty unrestrained and unfettered during the days when Vanderbilt, Carnegie, JP Morgan, Rockefeller and a few others dominated the railroads, steel, banking and other industrial growth 1870-1910. Certainly, it was great ways to amass fortunes, but many small businesses and the workingman had less than ideal circumstances.
Muckraking journalists, Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement were needed as a counterbalancing force.
Muckraking journalists, Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement were needed as a counterbalancing force.
There is no perfect form for an nation's economic system.
which form is the most sustainable?
Under which form would most people like to live?( perhaps we should exclude asking anyone living totally on taxpayer benefits )
but those people should be asked how long that system giving them all the bennies can exist when more millions are added to welfare rolls every year
and if they are willing to give up some of their bennies so others can get them
which form is the most sustainable?
Under which form would most people like to live?( perhaps we should exclude asking anyone living totally on taxpayer benefits )
but those people should be asked how long that system giving them all the bennies can exist when more millions are added to welfare rolls every year
and if they are willing to give up some of their bennies so others can get them
But I was told that fascism was right wing
The common political spectrum really isn't a good fit in American politics for two reasons. First, it treats two systems as opposites (Communism and Fascism) that are pretty similar. Keep in mind that "Nazi" is short for "Nationalsozialistische" (National Socialist). Both sides consider themselves socialistic and hostile to the free market. Second, it doesn't really account for another type of system - limited government.
In Europe, it makes more sense, because though there are political parties that advocate limited government, the mainstream parties that actually win elections and take power mostly do not. There are differences in how much deference and protection they give to established and traditional institutions and large business interests, but both Left and Right mostly favor a powerful state. If you view politics through that lens, it's easier to see how they think Fascism and Communism are opposites.
In America, there's a real, mainstream ideology committed to limited government, and that doesn't really fit into the political spectrum in either direction. A better spectrum that accounts for US politics would put anarchy on one end with authoritarian communism on the other end and fascism slightly to the right of communism.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Crockett, actually the period of 1870-1915 was a period of increasing competition. It was the progressive movement that gave Morgan, Carnegie, etc. them a political vehicle to remove competitive companies. It was thoroughly researched and documented in a book called "The Triumph of Conservatism". It was progressive propaganda that they were helping the little guy. They were selling influence to big business. It is what is happening today with guys like Donald Trump.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
This is a great question. The answer to "For a given country, which system provides the best quality of life for everyone?" may be a completely different answer from the answer to "Which system would people most like to live with?"
That is a conundrum isn't it?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That position is a ceremonial role, not one that has any real power which begs the question of the value of bribing Ashe.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
A "pipe dream?" -- either way -- ¡Buena suerte, amigo!
There is an actual point -- this has been the only way real life, practicing utopians have survived to date. They have natural resources which have value to capitalist societies. This is the whole story. It was how the Soviets survived as long as they did. It was what Hugo Chavez planned everything on (he needed close to $90 oil to pay for his programs. And look at it now). Likewise, Cuba's lack of natural resources explains why it has had negative GDP/negative wealth creation since the 1960s (as we know, Cuba survived on an avg of ~ $5B in aid per year from the Soviets). They are sucker fish. Or, a virus which needs a host. In this case, capitalism is the host.
There is an actual point -- this has been the only way real life, practicing utopians have survived to date. They have natural resources which have value to capitalist societies. This is the whole story. It was how the Soviets survived as long as they did. It was what Hugo Chavez planned everything on (he needed close to $90 oil to pay for his programs. And look at it now). Likewise, Cuba's lack of natural resources explains why it has had negative GDP/negative wealth creation since the 1960s (as we know, Cuba survived on an avg of ~ $5B in aid per year from the Soviets). They are sucker fish. Or, a virus which needs a host. In this case, capitalism is the host.
LousianaHorn
Kabong
Hitler had little use for the "Socialist" part of the Nazi Party name.........his rise to power was on the backs of the big Business block of the Rhineland (Krupp, Thyssen, etc.) and the Army, 2 of the most conservative elements in Germany at that time and they had little use for Communists and or socialistic tendencies in Government.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Louisiana Horn, fascism is a form of socialism where the government doesn't own the means of production but works exerts influence on big corporations to set economic policy for the country. It is a left wing ideology. Socialists, Communists, Fascists all hate each other not because they are fundamentally different but because they are all statist ideologies competing with each other for supremacy. The opposite end of the political spectrum from statism is anarchism or classical liberalism as seen in the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Laissez faire is a classically liberal idea which no governments really embrace any more.
They were conservative elements in the European sense of the term but not in the American political sense. The Left doesn't like to call Hitler's policies socialistic (for obvious reasons), and it's true that there were differences. He mostly didn't advocate government ownership of the means of production (neither does the American Left) and banned trade unions (by replacing them with the German Labor Front), but he advocated a command economy (like the American Left) and a generous welfare state (like the American Left). You can call it what you want, but it was much closer to socialism than free market capitalism.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In Utopian Paradise that certain group of drivers who cannot parallel park and who shall not be named, can now parallel park....
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Always loved this photo -- East German pilce vs. West German police (+ one lone woman)
A literal line in the bricks.
That line later turned into a wall.
In real-life, liberal utopia has to build a wall, not to keep us out, but to keep its own people in
(also a more subtle commentary on the 2nd Amendment)
A literal line in the bricks.
That line later turned into a wall.
In real-life, liberal utopia has to build a wall, not to keep us out, but to keep its own people in
(also a more subtle commentary on the 2nd Amendment)
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
