Belief vs Reality
"You responded with:
"I guess I would say that these statements indicate a belief that citizens are intentionally working to oppress others. I disagree with this belief system. "
to these statements:
"intentional disinvestment in American society by the moneyed class"
"assault on public education by those who would see it abolished"
"discrimination toward their skin color, ethnicity, or socioeconomic position"
Can you actually refute these three points, without resorting to discussion of 'belief?' Whether or not you believe a fact exists, does not stop that fact from existing.
We know that the Koch brothers spent heavily in many states and help fund ALEC, and are in no small part responsible for the election of Scott Walker in WI, and the subsequent assault on public unions, teachers, reproductive rights, environmental regulations and public education funding in that state. We know that many GOP members willfully intended to shut down the US government and have slashed funding for valuable public research.
We know that there are concerted efforts to disenfranchise whole swaths of the population among the states, and those efforts are explicitly stated as such by the GOP party members who pushed and advanced them.
These are all verifiable events. Belief is not relevant in this discussion.
And yes, perspective IS an interesting thing... but only when you can actually CHANGE your perspective, which I don't believe you are actually doing, at least not enough to fathom the reality of existence of those who are different from you or your immediate peer network." Jonathan
2 Sides to Every Topic
Now the question is can you see both sides?
Assault on public unions vs Allowing market to set correct compensation, thereby saving money for the tax payers.
Assault on Teachers vs Helping the Students learn by ensuring only the most effective Educators are in their classrooms and the expectations are clearly defined.
Assault on reproductive rights vs Preventing the stilling of a human heart for someone's convenience.
Assaulting environmental regulations vs Promoting a balanced cost effective approach to ensure the regulations do not cost our society more than they are worth.
Assault public education funding vs ensuring that the tax payer's money is used effectively so people can keep more of their paycheck.
I look at both sides all the time. That's the point of G2A, I like to challenge my beliefs and those of others. Now can you truly believe that those you call oppressors could actually be the freedom fighters? Or at least that they truly believe they are... Just as you truly believe you are on the side of "good"." G2A
Thoughts?
79 comments:
The one thing obvious here is that, if you view the world through the emotionally charged vocabulary of the left, then the horrible reality is exactly as you portray it. That doesn't mean it bears any resemblance to an objective reality. If I used heavily-loaded words like those, I would expect somebody here to challenge me on it.
Seems to me that "belief" enters into both sides, here, because you cannot believe that your statements are factual when you misuse words so egregiously. Just yelling "Koch Brothers" or "Alec" does not a logical, fact-based argument make.
It always surprises me what people will truly believe is "fact" or "real"... Then they often choose to assign "bad intent" to the person that opposes their view. Believing that the person is lying to get ahead, make money, harm the environment, control others, etc. Instead of just acknowledging that the other person truly sees the world differently.
Finally they resist the idea that many of their beliefs and conclusions are based on a very shaky foundation that was created by many chance occurences that they had little control over.
G2A Beliefs, Environment and Choice
If Jonathan was the son of a a Koch Brother, would he see the world the same way? The world will never know...
Where minimum wage arguments are concerned, I should note that people aren't paid what they are worth, they are paid, very often at least, what the market will bear. And what the market bears is often determined by those who have economic power and the will to use it.
A good teacher is more valuable than a good major league second baseman yet is paid less. The reason for that is that the second baseman has much more market power than the teacher.
--Hiram
"people aren't paid what they are worth"
How would you set the compensation level for each individual if not through the market?
The reason the high paid player is paid so much is because he is part of a very small population of people that can do what they do, and our society values what they do.
As for great Teachers being undercompensated, first problem is that they have to be compensated per the union's step and lanes. (ie everyone's equal based on years and degrees)
Second, it is hard to quantify a "great" teacher, and it is hard to sell advertising time on TV based on their efforts.
How would you set the compensation level for each individual if not through the market?
Me? I would pay everyone a million bucks an hour. That's probably one of many reasons why I am not in charge of decisions.
There are lots of ways of determining compensation. Bear in mind that for most of us, our compensation is rarely determined by any sort of free market. You don't place a bid for your job on eBay each morning before you go to work. One company I worked for hired an outside consultant who considered lots of factors, education, cost of living, comparable pay elsewhere. What they didn't do was follow me around during the day with a slide rule calculating how much value I was adding to the firm.
"The reason the high paid player is paid so much is because he is part of a very small population of people that can do what they do, and our society values what they do."
If that's the case, lets look at a different example. I make a pretty good living doing something a fairly huge segment of the population can do. You know what the best college football player in the country, the winner of the Heisman Trophy, earned in wages? Absolutely nothing. So why does he, a member of a very small population possessed of extraordinary skills, make so much less than someone like me?
--Hiram
Hiram started out with the right idea-- that wages are set by a free market, but biased by a lot of constraints like the number of folks in a given area with the skill set (if any) willing to take a given level of compensation. That is why welfare and minimum wage are such bad ideas insofar as getting everyone a job is concerned-- that government interference in this free market causes distortions that generally do more harm than good.
The college student plays for the same reason people go to college in the first place, to increase their knowledge, experience, etc. This investment increases their future market value.
"The college student plays for the same reason people go to college in the first place, to increase their knowledge, experience, etc"
Typically, the reason a top athlete goes to college has little to do with the reasons the average student goes to college. Just recently, one of the Gopher quarterbacks transferred out of school. I don't think it was because he found his biology professor unsatisfactory.
But we don't have to go there either. Let's look at some other examples. We are about to embark on the Winter Olympics. Competing at the highest level in Sochi will be the US curling team. The can do what few people in the world can do in their support. So will they be coming home to the big bucks?
And even for baseball, the era of big salaries is relatively recent. For most of baseball's history, the athletes who played the game at the highest level were paid very average salaries. They had to work off season to make ends meet. I just read about one early baseball player who quit the game because he got a job as a policeman in Buffalo. Major League baseball players have always been a select few, but if that's the reason they are paid so much, why are the high salaries of today such a recent development?
--Hiram
"Hiram started out with the right idea-- that wages are set by a free market, but biased by a lot of constraints like the number of folks in a given area with the skill set (if any) willing to take a given level of compensation."
Where is this free market of which you speak? Are employment contracts offered on email? Are job futures traded at the Chicago Board of Trade? Is the guy who fills my coffee order at Starbucks worried that he is going to get fired because someone will walk in the store one day and offer to do the same job for less?
--Hiram
"Where is this free market of which you speak?"
It's still there, it just has "constraints" on it, such as the fact that the guy at Starbucks had to be trained for a week or more before he started producing value. The guy walking in off the street would have to be trained and still might have less value than the experienced worker replaced, even at a lower salary. Experience has value. You're also assuming there IS someone willing to walk in and work for less, rather than somewhere else that will pay more-- free market competition for labor.
As for the pro baseball players, you have a free market constrained by both the very scarce supply of people who play at the level, coupled with the "all the market will bear" nature of monopoly pro sports. In other words, any top notch player can get big bucks, and teams can give it to them. If there were many more people who could play, or fewer fans who would pay, their salaries would be lower.
"As for the pro baseball players, you have a free market constrained by both the very scarce supply of people who play at the level, coupled with the "all the market will bear" nature of monopoly pro sports."
Markets are about supply and demand. Is low (or high) supply (or demand) a "constraint" or just the way markets function? I know of no general policy constraining kids from being second basemen.
But let's not lose sight of my original point here. For whatever reason, second basemen are paid more than teachers despite the fact that by almost any measure, they are of far less value to the community.
--Hiram
"despite the fact that by almost any measure, they are of far less value to the community"
Apparently you are incorrect. The high end 2nd baseman can generate revenues far in excess of his salary, therefore someone finds his services very valuable.
Imagine if baseball compensation worked like Teacher compensation. The only way one could make more was to play more games and take more classes...
That likely would cure the high compensation issues you are raising. Many of the best athletes would go to another sport where their skills would be more appreciated, and where their compensation would be aligned with their productivity and not their time served.
Besides the game of baseball would likely be less interesting to watch and therefore would not generate as many advertising revenues. That is unless fans would like seeing more errors in the field.
Teachers / coaches like Steven Covey are incredibly well compensated, however he was willing to start and grow his own business. (risk and reward) I could likely make more money if I did consulting, however I like my lower risk paycheck. For Teachers, they seem to highly value job security, summers off, stable pay increases, etc as part of their compensation.
Maybe if the teachers accepted more risk and worked more each year, the best Teachers could make signifantly more. Unfortunately the union does not want to reward the best performers the highest. Thus the absolutely most gifted and effective second grade teacher will be underpaid until she has at least 15 years in the classroom and has attained an MS degree.
It definitely is a silly system, but they are comfortable with it.
"Apparently you are incorrect. The high end 2nd baseman can generate revenues far in excess of his salary, therefore someone finds his services very valuable."
It is if you equate revenues with value. Teachers don't generate any revenues at all. Does that mean they are without value? Lots of thriving communities don't have major league baseball teams. Can you name a thriving community that doesn't have a school system?
"Imagine if baseball compensation worked like Teacher compensation."
I can try. I don't think very many kids got into Harvard because they lived in a city with a slick fielding second basemen.
"Maybe if the teachers accepted more risk and worked more each year."
My perception is that risk taking by teachers has limited appeal to parents. And the school season is longer than the baseball season.
Of course good Teachers create revenues for and reduce costs to our society. That is part of why citizens fund their efforts.
I think Parents would be very happy if the Teachers accepted more risk in their compensation system. Then the best Teachers would be paid the most no matter their degrees or years served.
And maybe, people with even higher potential may enter the field, since they would not need to wait 15 years to get paid what they are worth.
Lately, I have been re-watching what is widely considered the greatest TV program ever made, "The Wire". Among other things, "The Wire" is a dissection of capitalism. Here is D'Angelo, analyzing certain aspects of the McDonald's business model. Warning: Some of the language is obscene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvq3Pf3j61c
--Hiram
Of course good Teachers create revenues for and reduce costs to our society.
I don't see them on any balance sheet. What teachers create is value. The revenues appear elsewhere.
"I think Parents would be very happy if the Teachers accepted more risk in their compensation system. Then the best Teachers would be paid the most no matter their degrees or years served."
I just don't think teachers are motivated that much by pay. If they were, they wouldn't have become teachers.
--Hiram
I understand how teachers have value. But they don't have revenues. I understand how second basemen generate revenues. The issue I am raising is whether they have value. Many communities do quite nicely without second basemen. How would they do if they didn't have schools?
--Hiram
Most employees are not motivated by pay, it is true. One will work at a job they "love," or with people that are friendly, or with an organization that is succeeding, rather than go somewhere with more money but without those "soft" compensations. Nonetheless, if people recognize that they are doing better than their fellow employees but being paid the same or even less, they tend to move on.
To some degree that is why our school boards are correct that "we have to raise salaries or we lose our best teachers." Even though they cannot say how many teachers went to another district, how many of those went for better pay, how many left for reasons other than pay, and how anybody knows whether these were the "good" teachers or not, it is still true that the best teachers will have opportunities for more money outside the teaching profession. Especially the younger ones, held down by union rules. If we don't compensate our "best" teachers better than our worst, what else would we expect?
I have always said that my greatest fear was that my employer might suddenly decide to pay me what I was worth. But I was not the one setting my salary. What you get paid is determined by what someone is willing to pay you, not what some government chucklehead says you should get.
I would like to go back to the original question of "can you see both sides?" Yes and no. Yes, I can see both sides insofar as the arguments being made on both sides. No, because I generally find that only one side is based in objective fact, common sense, and sound logic. I am concerned about those who find merit to the side of an argument where I see none.
Generally many sides are based on objective fact and there are all sorts of countervailing trends. If you raise minimum wages, some jobs will disappear and others will not be created. But in other cases, wages will simply be raised. Part of the problem in our economy is that people just don't have money to spend. Raising wages helps to address that problem.
Here is a quote from a Krugman blog posting touching on some of these issues:
"I would add that we know what those circumstances are! Running deficits and printing lots of money are inflationary and bad in economies that are constrained by limited supply; they are good things when the problem is persistently inadequate demand. Similarly, unemployment benefits probably lead to lower employment in a supply-constrained economy; they increase employment in a demand-constrained economy; and so on."
--Hiram
That's all very well, but what the heck is a "demand-constrained economy" Is it where people don't have enough money to spend, because they don't have jobs, because capital formation and economic growth have all been sucked up by government spending?
I go back to the fundamental truth that government cannot spend any money it does not first take from the economy in taxes, or borrowing against future taxes. Therefore it cannot create economic growth, only redistribution from those who earned it to the favored classes, losing a lot of it in the middle.
Hiram's The Wire Link
"No, because I generally find that only one side is based in objective fact, common sense, and sound logic. I am concerned about those who find merit to the side of an argument where I see none."
I find this amusing since I am sure it is exactly what the people you disagree with would say... Let's test it in my next comment.
So your logic is that government spending can not create economic growth. Here is some logic that refutes that.
The US government raise the taxes on the wealthy (ie top 1%), much of which is sitting in investments and will not be spent anytime soon. (if ever) The government redistributes the wealth to people that will spend that money immediately since they have no will power to save and/or they are starving, etc.
This immediately moves money from the country's balance sheet. (ie wealth) to the cash flow side. (ie spending/GDP). Which means that the GDP will increase.
It seems to me the government can very easily create economic growth. Thoughts?
An interesting Min Wage comparison tool
"what the heck is a "demand-constrained economy" Is it where people don't have enough money to spend, because they don't have jobs, because capital formation and economic growth have all been sucked up by government spending?"
In this case, it's one where people don't have enough money to buy stuff.
--Hiram
I find this amusing since I am sure it is exactly what the people you disagree with would say..
A lot of people who disagree with me don't say this. This can be because of the dichotomy of absolutism and relativism. My though is that absolutists tend to be blind to relativist ideas. When you see the world in terms of black and white, by definition you don't see the greys. Relativists don't see the world in those terms. We understand absolutes and just extreme ends of a continuum. And you see that played out here. The absolutist believes that the facts support one correct view to the exclusion of all others. It really doesn't occur to think that way. In my world, there are plenty of good arguments I disagree with, plenty of arguments that I don't agree with now, but might agree with in different circumstances. Facts on the ground go all ways, and there just about always data than can be mined to support any view.
--Hiram
"It seems to me the government can very easily create economic growth. Thoughts? "
Wrong. The government can very easily create economic ACTIVITY, just as we can easily feed the hungry by eating the seed corn. It's rather like those "land distribution programs" some third-world tinpot socialists undertake. We take wealth away from the rich landowners and give it to the surrounding villagers, none of which has a clue as to how to make the land productive and each with too small a piece to be efficient if they did. Wealth is destroyed and the economy goes into negative growth. What usually follows is more Keynesian spending, and something like the Zimbabwean $1 million bill, worth 3 cents American. Sure, it's "economic growth" as measured in currency, but it has no real value.
The government can very easily create economic ACTIVITY
If it can't create growth, economic activity will do just fine.
--Hiram
"A lot of people who disagree with me don't say this." -- Hiram
Hiram, anybody can disagree with you, if they can understand your point. Relativists tend to talk in "cloud sentences"-- lots of gray obscuring the black and white necessary to make a choice or decision. Us absolutists think that many questions ARE black and white, yes or no, zero or one. In many of those cases relativists dawdle and progress stops, while absolutists push on. We can be wrong, but we can decide that later and change.
One of the rules of management I learned was that a good manager makes the right decision at least 51% of the time, but DECIDES. Now, some questions lend themselves to gray, such as, will one more piece of pizza hurt me now, should I save it for later, or can I just skip supper, or am I only considering this because it's here and it's Super Bowl Sunday? I don't think the question of whether to vote for the Democrat or Republican offers those kinds of alternatives. Neither is the question of whether the federal budget should be balanced or not.
"...economic activity will do just fine."
Really? Even if that initial burst of economic activity soon runs out, expires, and with no seed corn for next year's crop? The whole Keynesian idea is predicated on the notion that government spending kick-starts the economy quickly, without significant loss of wealth, and then is quickly ended before it does permanent damage to the economy. We've been running deficits since Clinton and it's gotten much worse under Obama. Time to get those federal spending junkies into rehab.
Even if that initial burst of economic activity soon runs out, expires,
Yes, even it soon expires. Recessions are systems of low economic activity that can be very stable.
--Hiram
"Us absolutists think that many questions ARE black and white, yes or no, zero or one."
We relativists are very aware of that. And we find we spend a great deal of time and effort trying to accommodate absolutist views.
--Hiram
"Sure, it's "economic growth" as measured in currency, but it has no real value."
That implies that the wealthy are using that money for something of "value". Is just bidding up the the stock market or some property really a value to the citizens of the USA? Or is it just making it more expensive for the typical American, and funding bubbles that are bound to pop?
Are there low income Americans who could create more real value with those dollars? Will the wealthy "producers" really stop producing if their tax rate is raised, or will their competitive type A personality keep them "striving" for success?
One of the biggest wealth transfer exercises was when the US Gov't pretty much gave away land in the 1800's to get people to settle in MN. Someone paid for the land and had faith that the immigrants would add value.
"Recessions are systems of low economic activity that can be very stable. "
No, they aren't. Massive government spending can reduce the depth of a recession, but continuing it only makes matters worse. Compare previous recessions with the Obama recession and you will see that massive stimulus coupled with uncertainty on taxes and regulations, plus increased taxes, continue the downturn long past when it would have otherwise ended. As I said, stimulative government spending at the expense of private investment and economic growth is short term medicine at best, and long term poison. Maybe you can find "facts" that offer a different explanation; I can't. Black and white yet not racist.
There is such a thing as a mind that is too open, where nothing "sticks" long enough to reach solid conclusions.
Yes, bidding up the stock market has value for ordinary Americans. It is a store of wealth that retirees can use as future income. It is a source of investment capital for companies from which they create economic growth. Yes, "bubbles" are bad but that is caused by individual bad decisions and people ought to be free to make them.
Low income Americans create value through work, if they can find it. The wealthy and entrepreneurs provide that work, and the capital they bring to the enterprise makes that work have more value (and pay better). It's unlikely you will ever get a job from a poor guy. Can you make starting a business and hiring new employees and investing in the business not worth the risk because of government taxation and regulation? Look around, the answer is obvious. Recently somebody complained that they were having their hours cut to avoid Obamacare. Obama's answer was that this was why we needed to raise the minimum wage. Wha--?
Please be careful of the examples you choose. They don't always prove what you think. Yes, some of MN was given to the railroad, and they sold it to immigrant pioneers. But they didn't take it away from the "owners" because we did not recognize the Native Americans as such (and neither did they themselves). It didn't take much for these immigrants to make the land more productive than it was, because they were farmers, and invested their work equity into the land. The railroad got rich for putting the railroad in, investing in infrastructure, and that increased economic activity and wealth all around. In other places, government gave away land that "nobody" owned, which gave people a sizable chunk of capital (land ownership) that they could use to vastly increase their productivity and production and personal wealth. Had government insisted on half-shares or somesuch, the pioneers might have ended up like the Mississippi freed slave sharecroppers-- "dirt poor."
Correction. The government bought it from France who stole it from the native Americans. Map
It was then given away. Homestaed Patents
At $4000+ per tillable acre... That little gift is worth ~$640,000 now... Now that is what I call a government handout...
Though I personally like higher stock prices, since most of my net worth is in the market. It appears 48% of the population would be indifferent to stock valuations. And Lord knows that managers chasing higher short term revenues/profits to raise the stock price to raise their bonus has led to a huge number of poor choices. Many of which hurt the typical American worker. Stock Ownership at Low
Maybe we should tax dividends and gains as regular income... It may dissuade some companies and Mgmt from making short term choices as often.
"There is such a thing as a mind that is too open, where nothing "sticks" long enough to reach solid conclusions."
That's the way absolutists think. Because they are absolutists, they need "solid" opinions, and in a world full of contradictory data the only way to do that is to close one's mind to certain things.
--Hiram
It definitely does make things simpler when one ignores the logic of the opposing view.
What if the opposing view is completely devoid of logic?
"That's the way absolutists think. Because they are absolutists, they need "solid" opinions, and in a world full of contradictory data the only way to do that is to close one's mind to certain things."
That is perhaps true, but it is rare that you have 100% accurate and conclusive data on which to base a decision or opinion. If you can dismiss some of the contradictory facts as less than compatible with what you know of the world, it makes it easier, and you can decide based on "the preponderance of the evidence." The important thing is to sort it out and make a decision, unless you enjoy the endless possibilities with no decision reached-- the "paralysis of analysis." There are folks like that.
"devoid of logic"... "dismiss some of the contradictory facts as less than compatible with what you know of the world, it makes it easier"...
I think you make my point, though I would replace "know of the world" with "believe of the world".
If one believes strongly that personal property rights are key to a country's success, you are going to find the concept "wealth redistribution" as devoid of logic.
If one believes strongly that large disparities in annual income are morally wrong and that it will lead to the unraveling of America's political stability, you will see unlimited incomes as devoid of logic.
So we have historical examples of both being correct/incorrect in different countries at different times. That is why most Americans support a mixed economy.
(ie somewhere between socialism and capitalism)
Rarely do I find an argument that is "devoid of logic"... Though sometimes there are arguments that use a logic that doesn't fit my belief system.
An example would be people who think we should provide handouts without proof of need. (ie Pelosi video) People who say that young woman and those young black men deserve money for nothing, that has been taken from other hard working citizens, definitely have some logic that I can not support.
Or folks that believe Bain and Company acted properly by taking profits out of the company and forcing the FDIC to settle for dimes on the dollar in a restructuring deal.
Both of these examples are just examples of legalized theft from what I "know". (oh I mean... believe) Yet the fringe Left and fringe Right would support both.
"It definitely does make things simpler when one ignores the logic of the opposing view."
And the facts they are often based.
--Hiram
"If you can dismiss some of the contradictory facts as less than compatible with what you know of the world, it makes it easier, and you can decide based on "the preponderance of the evidence."
Sure, absolutism is easier. And by the way, sometimes the better solution is the one without the preponderance of evidence. A proposition can be true without evidence, and plenty of false propositions are supported by ample evidence. Absolutists often believe that as well.
--Hiram
"An example would be people who think we should provide handouts without proof of need."
You think we should demand an audit from the guy at the Salvation Army kettle every Christmas? The fact is, we often give handouts in people who aren't in need. Minnesota Public Radio is pretty flush yet they have frequent pledge drives.
Demanding proof of need costs. I see a link to a commentary in the Strib the other day about security of bank credit cards. The guy said we have problems with fraud because retailers don't demand ID. Of course, as a veteran of Voter ID debates I was amused by this. I thought the trend was to demand more ID, not less. But that aside, the reason why we are moving away from ID is efficiency, the retailer is far more concerned with the lost sale than what is in fact, a remote prospect of fraud. Similarly, one reason we don't base a lot of things on need is because the need is so general. And really, does it make a lot of sense to complicate stuff, and then in the next breath complain how complicated stuff is?
--Hiram
See I knew there were people who would think it is logical to give away someone else's money without adequate due diligence... And he even has what he truly believes is a logical argument.
Now does it apply also to the Bain and company situation. All those FDIC dollars that flowed out...
I knew there were people who would think it is logical to give away someone else's money without adequate due diligence.
I wasn't claiming it was logical, just that it happens all the time. But in general, the problem with making stuff needs based is that the needy don't have political power and so need based programs have a tendency to deteriorate.
Bain and Company are beneficiaries of a system that rewards paper shuffling instead of productivity. What they are in the business of selling is tax breaks of various kind. Now, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, It's not for me to question what a man does for a living, but it's not really in my interest for Bain's business to do well.
--Hiram
I think of a lot of these issues in the terms of what I think is the defining poem of the 20th century, Yeats' "The Second Coming":
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
http://www.online-literature.com/bierce/780/
--Hiram
In a republic where everyone gets one vote, and the majority believe they are "needy", the "needy" have a great deal of political power and influence.
Thus we have medicaid, many welfare programs, social security, Obamacare, medicare, grants for higher education, work tax credits, child tax credits, min wage laws, etc.
Bain and the Pelosi welfare recipients are the same to me... People taking advantage of "loop holes". paperwork and poor oversight to take money from other citizens. Neither of their actions are good for the majority of us citizens.
"Rarely do I find an argument that is 'devoid of logic'..."
You are confusing facts and logic. It is very often true that people reach different conclusions based on selecting a different set of facts from which to reason logically. I accept that, though I often find that liberals "argue from a false premise." For example, the notion that anybody's income should be limited by government fiat is not self-evidently good, yet you often see liberals state it as such. One might reach such a conclusion logically, based on some factual information, but by itself it is, in fact, completely devoid of logic.
Try another example. Al Gore points to the ice core data and notes, correctly, that there is a very high correlation between temperature and CO2 level. His logical conclusion is that CO2 causes temperature rise. Anyone that actually looks at the data notices that there is a 400-800 year LAG in the CO2 concentration, and concludes that global warming causes CO2, not the other way around. Al Gore is either reasoning from a faulty premise, not reasoning at all, or lying. And I don't think he's smart enough to lie.
"Thus we have medicaid, many welfare programs, social security, ..."
That's where I think you are wrong. What you are seeing is the success of the siren song of liberalism-- the "free lunch" utopian politicians gaining power over the "TANSTAAFL" realists. Do you really think Democrats would be in control of the US Senate if they had said "We promise to raise health insurance premiums 40% for the vast majority of you, and then to give away another $2 trillion of your tax money to 1 or 2 percent of the rest of you"? How about "We're taking 14% of your salary, and maybe we'll start giving it back to you when you turn 67"? We didn't vote for these things, and wouldn't, in our right minds, knowing the facts. But we were tricked into voting for politicians that did.
In a republic where everyone gets one vote, and the majority believe they are "needy"
Democracies might possibly work that way, but as has frequently been pointed out to me, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic, and one that isn't governed by majoritarian principles. The founders, in their infinite wisdome, established a system where government was by consensus, not majority. That's why what government does or more often doesn't do, so often conflicts with poll results.
--Hiram
"Do you really think Democrats would be in control of the US Senate if they had said "We promise to raise health insurance premiums 40% for the vast majority of you, and then to give away another $2 trillion of your tax money to 1 or 2 percent of the rest of you"?"
Do you think Republicans would control the House if they said to our elderly, "When you are used up, we are going to let you die in poverty, in many cases outside an emergency room door?"
Framing issues is a party trick anyone can perform.
--Hiram
"Framing issues is a party trick anyone can perform."
I like that! Unfortunately, one Party seems to have a monopoly on the tricks. It is very difficult to for conservative reality to compete politically when the liberal pipe dreams are so splendid. Surely you do not think your characterization of the Republican position is as truthful as the ones I ascribed to Democrats? Have you noticed the disconnect between Democrat promises and reality in Obamacare and the Stimulus?
Unfortunately, one Party seems to have a monopoly on the tricks.
Hardly. All this talk about "free lunch" is certainly one way of framing an issue. I see loaded terms used all the time, really from all sides.
--Hiram
"Have you noticed the disconnect between Democrat promises and reality in Obamacare and the Stimulus?"
The disconnect on these issues are certainly no worse than the disconnect Republicans gave us with the War in Iraq or the Bush tax cuts.
Well if nothing else, this discussion has proven that it is very very hard to have an open mind... At least among this very very small sample of humanity. On the lighter side...
Comic 1
Comic 2
Comic 3
Comic 4
Comic 5
Comic 6
"The disconnect on these issues are certainly no worse than the disconnect Republicans..."
Sorry, I do not accept the tu quoque argument. Being an absolutist, I think everything has to stand or fall on its own merits. Obamacare and the stimulus did not live up to the promises made for them. Whether Democrats knowingly lied about what would happen or not, they have turned out horribly and should be undone. That Democrats steadfastly insist that reality is something other than what it is tells me that they do not have sufficiently open minds. That Republicans, for the most part, either foresaw the disaster and voted against it, or have since seen the reality and rail against it today is a more positive portrayal. Think what you will of past Republican actions; on this one they have it right.
I have an admission to make. Whenever I listen to Republicans talk about health care, I find myself agreeing with them. Turn over health care choices to patients? I love it. Introduce efficiencies in the providing health care? I am all for it. Make health care cheaper? Where do I sign up? The problem comes in that while I am in favor of what Republicans advocate with respect to health care, it turns out that Republicans are not. Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted 42 times to repeal Obamacare, yet they have not passed an alternative even once. That's because Republicans don't agree that they should provide what they criticize Obamacare for lacking. And that, as much as anything, is compelling evidence of a lack of seriousness on the part of Republicans when talking about as opposed to addressing problems with the American health care system.
==Hiram
You may find this interesting.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/05/the-great-deflection/
"That's because Republicans don't agree that they should provide what they criticize Obamacare for lacking."
You misunderstand Republicans. They don't like making impossible promises and then crafting legislation that they "have to pass to find what's in it." They like to solve the problem, and to replace a "comprehensive" legislation takes a lot of thought as to what all the pieces need to be and how they work together. Republicans have proposed and even passed some of the pieces needed, as health care reform should have been handled all along, but only now is there some general agreement on what that "repeal and replace" legislation will look like. The first essential in healthcare is to stop the bleeding that Obamacare has caused, and on that Republicans have been repeatedly insistent and united.
To the subject at hand, we would already have the Republican solution except that Democrats have absolutely closed their minds to the reality, and diligently strive to keep ours likewise.
64 posts! Is that a record?
1.) We know why the stimulus failed to meet projections -- it was because the economic situation was far worse than was known at the time the bill was passed. The projections done on the effects of the stimulus were done on the assumption that Q4 2008 GDP was declining at -3.3%, when in fact it declined -8.9%. If you apply the projections against the accurate baseline, you come up with the fact that the stimulus had the impacts on employment that it was supposed to have.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
2.) I don't think we know that Obamacare "didn't work". And, again, even if it doesn't meet all of its goals, we're still likely seeing a significant improvement over the status quo. Such that any GOP health care reform is likely to maintain major elements of the ACA.
3.)Republicans "don't like making impossible promises"? To laugh! The War in Iraq was sold on impossible promises. Medicare Part D was sold on impossible promises. I can keep going if you want me to...
4.) Just because you don't accept my argument doesn't mean it's not valid. It makes life simple when you can just ignore those facts that are inconvenient, but simple isn't necessarily right.
I don't know that providing a reasonable alternative to employer based health care discourages work in any meaningful sense. There are lots of reasons to have a job besides health inOsurance. But it's also the case that vast numbers of people stay in the work force because they need the health care benefits. Obamacare has the potential at least, to free people to retire earlier, and I don't see that as such a bad thing.
--Hiram
"They don't like making impossible promises and then crafting legislation that they "have to pass to find what's in it."
They might not like it but that doesn't prevent them from doing it. As for taking their time, the first proposals for comprehensive health care date to the Truman administration. Obamacare itself is basically a Republican program and that has been a big problem for Republicans in what little effort they have made to craft an alternative. Since for political reasons, Obamacare must be reflexively rejected by Republicans, the consequence of that is that Republicans find themselves rejecting much of what they have proposed in the past. Since Obama coopted so much of what Republicans would be otherwise proposing, they are forced into making generalities in public, while searching for some part of their program that Obamacare hasn't already adopted. Little wonder that they have been so utterly unable to tell us what they are in favor of, since the president is already in favor of it.
--Hiram
By the way, the notion that you can know all the consequences of a complex piece of legislation before it is enacted is classic absolutist thinking. In the world of the absolutist thinking, it's not that there aren't unintended consequences, rather that it's that unintended, and sometimes even intended consequences aren't recognized because they are inconsistent with the absolutes. With respect to health care, the Republican spin on Obamacare is to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance in a way different from the way Obamcare does it. The perfectly foreseeable consequence is that eventually those subsidies will begin to lag actual costs and that a dysfucntional political system will be unable to adjust to that emerging cost differential. It's a pretty obvious problem but one Republicans seem determined not to recognize.
--Hiram
Current Leader for most comments was Dayton: MN can not feed their own at 72...
"By the way, the notion that you can know all the consequences of a complex piece of legislation before it is enacted is classic absolutist thinking."
Actually, the notion that you can craft complex legislation and know exactly what it will do is a utopian idea. Liberals believe, I am certain, that their legislation will accomplish exactly what they want it to accomplish, regardless of what it actually says.
A favorite liberal line of argumentation is the "tu quoque" or "your side does it, too." Another is to try to confuse the issue with things that aren't even remotely related, or to assert some generality that ties something unrelated to the subject at hand.
For example, to suggest that Obamacare was not sold based on false promises because the Iraq War was isn't exactly a solid path of reasoning. I don't think the evidence supports either proposition, let alone a link between the two. If you want to make a case that all of the promises made for Obamacare have been delivered, feel free, but you are likely to have a credibility problem.
I think an "open mind" needs to see through all of these distractions and take one thought all the way through. An open mind searches for the truth-- the reality-- looking at only the pertinent facts from "both sides" of the issue but with a jaundiced eye because many "facts" these days are not. Some discernment and judgment must be applied.
A favorite liberal line of argumentation is the "tu quoque" or "your side does it, too."
That's very true. My side often does it too. I can point to various forms of absolutist thinking ss well. And for the your side does it, too, I am very willing to point out Obamacacare's Massachusetts origins. My side copied the other side, and that's not something a lot of us are happy about. One reason for Tu Quoque thinking is the belief that it will neutralize the opposition of co-opting it's program. This never works in practice.
--Hiram
I think an "open mind" needs to see through all of these distractions and take one thought all the way through
Absolutists never have a problem in deciding which facts are relevant and which facts are "distractions" to be discarded. Distractions are those facts which conflict with what has already been decided.
--Hiram
Yippee !!! We have a new record !!!
"Absolutists never have a problem in deciding which facts are relevant and which facts are "distractions" to be discarded."
Perhaps that is because we are willing to actually make those distinctions, unlike some in the mushy middle. Granted that there is bias involved in these decisions, especially that bias that prefers the "truth" you have prejudged to be the correct one. There is also a prejudice involved in deciding which sources you will trust and which you generally will not. I accept information from multiple sources, but I try to read past the bias in almost every presentation, and extract the underlying facts. Then, if I see corroboration of those facts from multiple and oppositely-biased sources, I can draw my own conclusions.
I like to think I have an open mind, but I don't often find someone of the opposite worldview that can convince me with facts and reason. Most often it is a debate about which facts are pertinent to the question at hand.
"Perhaps that is because we are willing to actually make those distinctions, unlike some in the mushy middle."
Absolutists are very willing to make distinctions. Indeed, they need to make distinctions, because an absolutist without absolutes, or one who, or one reason or another, seen their commitments to absolutes shattered suddenly find themselves at a loss in a turbulent world. Very often, it seems to me, that absolutists who have lost faith in one extreme scurry over and find refuge in the opposite extreme. That's why so many former Communists become right wing extremists. So many formerly religious people become proselytysing atheists and so many proselytysing atheists, become devoutly religious.
--Hiram
The absolutist needs clarity and believes in the virtue, the rightness of clarity. The absolutist will seek out clarity, whether or not it exists. For the absolutist, mush, a middle point between water and snow is wrong, just because it is a middle point. For the relativist, mush is just one form, among several, of water, neither better nor worse than any other, but one that you ignore at your peril.
--Hiram
"The absolutist will seek out clarity, whether or not it exists."
It seems to me that only an absolutist would proclaim that clarity does not exist. But on the other hand, if you have no enduring standards for what is right or desirable, then clarity is harder to get. I see "good" as self-evident, but we often have confused or imperfect (sometimes intentionally so) information about certain things.
Post a Comment