Us or Them (First World vs Third World) [Archive]

timetraveler

09-25-2009, 12:47 PM

Educating third world people about family planning will make it more difficult for you to get a job?

I never said don't educate the third world about family planning. Where did you get that from?And I never said don't educate the third world either. What I said is we have to focus on our own people before we educate the third world. We have 20+% unemployment in some places.
Am I supposed to care about the third world more than I care about my own family members in my own country?

That type of attitude is responsible for the suspicion developing countries have of developed countries. It isn't competition from the third world that causes an escalation in the basic requirements for a job. It is the deteriorating quality of primary, secondary and tertiary education. There is more money to be made by educational institutions if they keep dumbing down the curriculum and promoting a shiny new degree.

You are naive because you think that more education will create jobs. More education will create greater competition for the jobs that already exist. Think of it like having a bunch of countries that are in competition for a finite supply of natural resources across the globe. These countries are developing nuclear weapons and WMDs so they can go to war for this finite supply of natural resources. What you are saying is it's best to give the third world WMDs too so they can compete also. What you aren't aware of is this is only going to make people in the first world hate the third world even more. This will only increase xenophobia, and only make the situation worse. Education increases the level of competition but it does not change the reality and the only way to have the world you seem to want is to change reality.

Consider that outside of your country you'll find people similar to yourself -- with the same needs, desires and struggles. They are just as bewildered by the complexity of the situation as yourself but I hope they are able to maintain their humanity instead of looking at people in other countries as nothing more than the competition -- a sort of enemy.

If my friends and family members don't have jobs, I'm going to be focused on getting them jobs. It's not my responsibility to bring jobs to the third world when I can't even bring jobs to my own people. You can appeal to my compassion or empathy but how I feel about the third world has nothing to do with my decision making. This isn't a personal decision, it's a business decision. I'm responsible only to my family, my friends and my country, and only after we are safe can I worry about the safety of others. If you are Donald Trump, or somebody who is in a position to make a difference to the third world you should do so. And I do support OLPC (one laptop per child), and other education initiatives for the third world.

But I'm more concerned with the US economy at this time, and the fate of my own country. And I think it would be wise of you to save yourself before you worry about saving other people.

timetraveler added to this post, 12 minutes and 40 seconds later...

You, and your little ragtag group of family and friends do not amount up to anything that the rest of the entire world ("them") should even be remotely concerned about. If this is the scope you set, you will be crushed by the competition of the rest of the world every time. But of course, you are free to live in your cowboy fantasy world. Let me know how this works out for you.

What "rest of the world" are you talking about? Everyone is looking out for them and theirs. That is how capitalism works and it's always been this way. Cowboy fantasy? You act like I chose to live this way. I was born into the same society you were born into.

I was born into a society where nobody gives a damn about each other unless you are their friend or family. I guess you were born in a communist country so you believe that everyone is looking out for everyone else, but have you ever seen that in a capitalist society? Do you think the owners of the big corporations give a damn about you, me, the third world or anyone but their family and friends? Tell me what fantasy world you live in where it benefits you to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others?

You can sacrifice yourself if you want to, but I'm not doing that. I think its completely illogical to let your friends and family suffer for the benefit of nameless, faceless strangers in the third world. Some people are willing to do that and I agree its important to do some charity work, but I don't think we are responsible to give up our futures so they can have one. Charity is what you do when your future is secure, when you know your family and friends will have jobs and can pay their bills. Charity is giving back, when you have something to give.

The order of responsibility is first to family, second to friends, third to country, and fourth to the world. When times get hard such as a depression, or recession, or when there is conflict all around the world whether it be the cold war or world war 2, this is when you have to choose your family, your friends, and your country and focus on that. It's us vs them not because I made it that way, but the people who control society don't give us any choice.

They create a limited number of jobs, a limited number of slots in the American dream, and they make us all fight for those slots. And it's this fighting and conflict that creates the us vs them attitude. I want the American dream just like everyone else on the planet wants it. But I cannot get it if I don't fight somebody else to get it, and if I have it thats one less person who can have it. It's the nature of capitalism that promotes this, not the nature of the people who play the capitalist game.

BananaKT

09-25-2009, 01:55 PM

timetraveler

09-25-2009, 03:31 PM

You implied that educating the third world would lead to increased competition for jobs in your country. I simply pointed out in one sentence that the education I referred to regards birth control since this is a population control thread. Therefore it would be safe to conclude from your previous reply that birth control education is a threat to you job prospects. It seemed spurious so I queried it.

NO, I said education in science and technology would reduce jobs in the USA due to outsourcing. This is an economic reality that I accept. I did not say that all education is bad, but we must accept that the workforce is global and the global economy only needs X amount of computer programmers at any one time, Y amount of scientists at any one time, and to over produce a certain kind of worker only lowers the wages and salaries of those who already are that kind of worker. If I'm a computer programmer the last thing I want is to have computer programming taught in elementary schools in the third world because then my value as a computer programmer goes down as the scarcity of my profession decreases.

I am one of those third world people in whose water you would like to put something but I'm not surprised you would argue this way considering this sentence: Don't worry. The third world gets the message loud and clear but we also know that in the developed countries you can also find people of conscience. Those people give us hope.

I am a person of conscience, but I'm in no position to help you. If I help you all that does is make the first world into the living standards you have in the third world. You don't seem to understand that if you are homeless you cannot go to someone who barely has a penny to his name and ask him to help you get a home. He is probably busy trying to get a home for himself too and he just happens to have a pocket full of pennies because his ancestors paid the price to get those pennies. Your ancestors may have paid the price too but perhaps they were not as fortunate, so they paid the price in the wrong country. The point is we can't all have a home, we can't all live the American dream, and we can't all be winners. It's naive to believe we can all be winners and all live the American dream, they (the employers) just don't need that many of us and so we have to compete amongst ourselves to get into those slots while those slots still exist. Conscience has nothing to do with it because I'm not rich, you aren't rich, so we both are fighting to survive. If you want to hope that some rich people are going to give you the American dream you can do that, but if thats not happening in America why would you think it will happen for the third world?

I must also say that in the US there is a mean-spiritedness among some of the people which is very sad to behold. I remember after 9-11, I travelled to the US shortly after the air restrictions were lifted. My family and I went shopping at a store I won't name. We were the only customers possibly because the country was still stunned by the tragedy. Our presence created a stir. Within a few minutes we were surrounded by the store's staff eager to help us. There were tears in their eyes and they expressed their gratefulness that we were willing to continue travelling and shopping in the US despite the danger. I returned to that same store one year later and had the most difficult time to get any attention from the staff.

I said it before and I'll say it again, as an American it's not personal that I cannot help you. It's a matter of my priorities. You are grouping me with people who support or promote the misery you are dealing with, and the strife you are facing, but the people who promote that aren't my friends either and are creating misery and strife for me. So if you are assuming I'm mean spirited, or that I would be mean to you on a personal level you are wrong. It's not personal at all.

They seemed to always have someone else that was a higher priority to assist. I persisted and eventually finished my shopping at the store chuckling to myself. I was back to being "another third world customer". Am I angry? No. It seems I'm too naive and lacking in wisdom to be.

Most individuals have people they love and people who love them. These people make up the individuals they are personally responsible for. In the USA people are losing their houses, losing their jobs, can't find a job, and many of their friends and family members are in the same dire position. You are begging for help, appealing to their conscience but their friends and family are begging for help and also appealing to their conscience. At some point every individual has to recognize that they cannot help everybody, and they have to focus on the people who matter most to them. This is usually their immediate family.

So you and others may take it personally when Americans are focused on helping their immediate family(their loved ones) and ignore you. These Americans who are barely able to survive in America are not the Americans you should be asking to help you. You should be asking the Americans who have enough to help their friends and family, and still help you.

How many Americans do you really think that is right now in this economy, with this level of unemployement? Do you realize the USA is practically bankrupt? Do you realize that most Americans are drowning in personal debt? America might be the richest country in the world but only the top 1% of Americans are rich, the rest are barely making ends meet.

The only way the middle class in the USA will be able to help the third world is through microfinance. If I can make money by investing in your business, if I can be a shareholder, a stock owner, if I can give you a loan, then I can help you without hurting myself. If by helping you I can help myself, then I can help you. If I can invest in you and we both get rich then I can help you. Once again the current financial system is not setup in a way where the American middle class can invest in the third world. To have the world you want would require a complete reorganization of the capitalist system. And I think reorganization would be a good idea, but as things are set up right now it's the US middle class vs the rest of the world.

The US middle class is shrinking. The USA does not even have healthcare for a lot of its own citizens. The US middle class is shrinking because jobs are being outsourced to places like China and India. So the elites of the USA are playing the US middle class against the third world in the battle for jobs. They created the US vs Them situation when they outsourced entire industries to third world countries. It took people generations to get established in these industries in the USA, a lot of people simply don't know another way to live. When the factory jobs were outsourced, the factory workers lose their homes and/or their neighborhood is a ghetto now. They had a taste of the American dream and it was snatched away to give people overseas a taste of the American dream.

Do you see now where the mean spiritedness comes from? These individuals are 40-50 years old, they can't be expected to go back to school. They wasted decades learning their profession only to be told their profession no longer exists in the USA. What are they supposed to do? What are their children supposed to do?

BananaKT

09-25-2009, 04:49 PM

timetraveler

09-25-2009, 09:03 PM

I'm sorry for the troubles of the USA but it has nothing to do with third world people wanting homes and everything to do with the unbridled greed of American companies.

Furthermore, though Americans may dream of owning homes they have never had a monopoly on that idea.

Good we finally agree that the problem is the greed of American companies, not the American people who work for those companies.

If you understand that many Americans were forced to take a stake in these corporations by virtue of these corporations paying their salary, you can understand that Americans don't really decide as individuals the policies. These corporations decide American foreign policy based on whats best for these corporations, not what is best for individual Americans. The American corporation does not care about the American citizen anymore than it cares about the third world citizen. And in some cases it cares about the American citizen even less.

Many foreign individuals own US treasury bonds, these are the owners of the USA. If you don't like the policy then perhaps you should talk to the people who own America. I don't own any bonds, I'm just a citizen. If I get hired by whomever, then I will be loyal to whomever is hiring me, and I don't decide the policy of the bosses. I'm only in position to be happy to get whatever I can get, just like your position really.

yoginimama

09-26-2009, 12:58 AM

So the elites of the USA are playing the US middle class against the third world in the battle for jobs. They created the US vs Them situation when they outsourced entire industries to third world countries.

Exactly correct. But the way to fix this is not to blame or fear people in the Third World, or to wish that Third Worlders would stop becoming educated.

The fact is, the process you have described has been a disaster for the Third World every bit as huge as it has been for the USA.

The African continent used to have a fairly decent developing industrial base. There used to be clothing manufacturers in West Africa. Now, they get cast-off T-shirts from the US. American and European corporations destroyed the nascent industrial economies of African nations, and the standard of living on the African continent has gone down to unfathomable levels. Much of the continent exists in a state of de facto slavery, mining coltan and other resources under shocking conditions for western companies. This has been done for the sake of the profit of those companies.

This is to say nothing of the extreme damage caused by global warming which is largely industrial-driven. Bangladesh is literally drowning.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So if people in the US have suffered from these corporate policies, be assured that folks in the Third World have suffered far worse. Don't be fooled by the relatively narrow band of people in India who are benefiting.

If we must speak in terms of "us" and "them," the "us" is the entire world, and the "them" are corporate profiteers.

Shifter

09-26-2009, 02:01 AM

I said education in science and technology would reduce jobs in the USA due to outsourcing. This is an economic reality that I accept. I did not say that all education is bad, but we must accept that the workforce is global and the global economy only needs X amount of computer programmers at any one time, Y amount of scientists at any one time, and to over produce a certain kind of worker only lowers the wages and salaries of those who already are that kind of worker. If I'm a computer programmer the last thing I want is to have computer programming taught in elementary schools in the third world because then my value as a computer programmer goes down as the scarcity of my profession decreases.

But, by educating the third world and increasing the number of skilled workers you will also increase the number of consumers, thereby increasing the demand for said workers. Additionally advances made by the likes of scientists, engineers, and programmers would allow for increased quality of living at a decreased cost, this is the very reason we are able to run projects like OLPC. Sure, if they only trained programmers then that would decrease the value of first world programmers, but they would also be decreasing the value of their own programmers, so it's in their own best interests to supply skilled labour only where high demand exists.

Americans (and the the first world in general) should be looking at developing the third world as an opportunity to increase their own wealth rather than a threat to it. An educated third would offer new virgin markets ripe for the ravishing by first worlders with a head start in terms of wealth, technology, and capital. But people are naturally risk adverse, and would rather keep what they have that risk it for more.

The real limiting factor (for wealth or quality of life) is the availability of natural resources and the rate at which they can be processed, not the number of people it's shared amongst. If you doubled the population of America, Americans wouldn't be twice as poor (is the quality of life in the US half what it was in 1950?).

timetraveler

09-26-2009, 04:58 AM

Exactly correct. But the way to fix this is not to blame or fear people in the Third World, or to wish that Third Worlders would stop becoming educated.

The fact is, the process you have described has been a disaster for the Third World every bit as huge as it has been for the USA.

Yeah I'm not saying the third world doesn't suffer too. But what do you want me to do about it?

The African continent used to have a fairly decent developing industrial base. There used to be clothing manufacturers in West Africa. Now, they get cast-off T-shirts from the US. American and European corporations destroyed the nascent industrial economies of African nations, and the standard of living on the African continent has gone down to unfathomable levels. Much of the continent exists in a state of de facto slavery, mining coltan and other resources under shocking conditions for western companies. This has been done for the sake of the profit of those companies.

And our children will be living just like they live now because thats where we are headed. We are on the path to de facto slavery and I don't like it.

This is to say nothing of the extreme damage caused by global warming which is largely industrial-driven. Bangladesh is literally drowning.

Global waring is going to affect the USA just as much as it will affect the third world. In fact it will affect the USA more because Americans don't have the social institutions to deal with this while the third world has been dealing with this for much longer and are both socially and psychologically prepared for it. Most Americans are completely naive about how the world really is and they are in for a very rude awakening. There are a lot of Americans who grew up completely sheltered in the middle class, they don't know what its like to live in the sort of environment that people live in places like Mexico, or even the environment that people live in places like New Orleans. Americans are completely naive about it and they will not be able to cope psychologically with the shock of what is about to come.

So if people in the US have suffered from these corporate policies, be assured that folks in the Third World have suffered far worse. Don't be fooled by the relatively narrow band of people in India who are benefiting.

The third world isn't suffering worse, they are just suffering longer.

If we must speak in terms of "us" and "them," the "us" is the entire world, and the "them" are corporate profiteers.

Wrong. You are taking a political stand here but by doing this you limit your ability to become friends with corporate profiteers. Also you could have corporate profiteers marry into your family and complicate that situation further. They may be corporate profiteers but if the corporate profiteer is someone you know then it's us. Its only when the corporate profiteer is a person you've never met, don't know, don't like, then they become "them". If the corporate profiteer is your friend and offers you a job, it changes the entire equation and all your political stances will be for what? On the other hand if the corporate profiteer wont hire you, then yes they are one of them.

What I'm saying is that us vs them depends entirely on your perspective and on who is in your social network. Some people are related to or know corporate profiteers. Some people are friends with corporate profiteers. So to these people the corporate profiteer is of us and the third world and people like you are one of them. I don't know any corporate profiteers, but because I speak english and live in the USA there is always the possibility that at some point in my life I may become friends with a corporate profiteer based on these variables alone and because of this I don't consider them as much of a them as I do someone who speaks a language I don't know, who doesn't create any jobs in the USA at all, who I'll never have the possibility of meeting at all.

There will probably be a time in the future where I have friends who are both corporate profiteers and third world workers. And in that situation my friends will be on both sides and them will be everyone else.

timetraveler added to this post, 12 minutes and 10 seconds later...

But, by educating the third world and increasing the number of skilled workers you will also increase the number of consumers, thereby increasing the demand for said workers. Additionally advances made by the likes of scientists, engineers, and programmers would allow for increased quality of living at a decreased cost, this is the very reason we are able to run projects like OLPC. Sure, if they only trained programmers then that would decrease the value of first world programmers, but they would also be decreasing the value of their own programmers, so it's in their own best interests to supply skilled labour only where high demand exists.

You are wrong on all levels because you are taking a naive stance. You believe that the workers in the third world are working to improve your quality of life. Those workers are working to improve Paris Hilton and Donald Trumps quality of life. Your quality of life is set to go down as your taxes rise, as your salary is lowered, and as inflation decreases the value of the money you do have. And you are right it does decrease the value of their own programmers, they aren't winning either. They are being exploited too. The only winners are the corporations like Microsoft and others who hire programmers in India to save money, its a way to preserve and protect profits and preserve and protect a monopoly and it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the product. The quality of Microsofts software has been going down ever since they started outsourcing to India, and the cost of their products have stayed exactly the same or have rose.

Americans (and the the first world in general) should be looking at developing the third world as an opportunity to increase their own wealth rather than a threat to it. An educated third would offer new virgin markets ripe for the ravishing by first worlders with a head start in terms of wealth, technology, and capital. But people are naturally risk adverse, and would rather keep what they have that risk it for more.

How? I want to look at it like that and so do many others, but elites who have wealth want to keep everyone else poor. It's a big game where if you have the money you do everything you can to make it harder for other people to get money. If it were up to some people, there would be a salary cap on everybody but CEOs. This way there would be no possibility of anyone getting out of poverty anywhere. Please understand that many people hate social mobility and want to decrease it at any cost. They do this through raising taxes on the middle class, and through unofficial salary caps. Median salaries have remained the same for the past 40 years in most industries, they don't change and its really not all that different from communism. Taxes on the other hand are set to go up, so what does this mean?

The real limiting factor (for wealth or quality of life) is the availability of natural resources and the rate at which they can be processed, not the number of people it's shared amongst. If you doubled the population of America, Americans wouldn't be twice as poor (is the quality of life in the US half what it was in 1950?).

The quality of life in the USA is worse than it was in 1950. Ask anyone who was alive in 1950. The quality of life in the USA is worse than it was in the 1980s and I was alive for the 1980s. Our quality of life goes down every generation, and this is because while salaries stay exactly the same, everyone is working more. In the 50s only one parent had to work, now both parents have to work. In the 50s the median salary was increasing, but from the 60s forward the median salaries stopped increasing and stayed the same.

The only people who are seeing salaries increase every year are CEOs. Quality of life is increasing for CEO's, and decreasing for everyone else. If you are rich in the USA quality of life is increasing for you, but if you are poor or middle class quality of life is much worse than the 1950s and is set to be worse in 10 years than it is now, and worse again in 20.

RedIrish

09-26-2009, 10:23 AM

PunkinA

09-26-2009, 11:40 AM

alrightgame

09-26-2009, 12:55 PM

Wow. Talk about narrowing the debate.

It's a small planet folks. And WE are all in it together, whether you like it or not. Nothing will change or improve until this false dichotomy of "them versus us" is abolished.

Agreed. Really, the us vs them debate should be that them is the "wall" that politicians, business men, voters, and dictators built up vs the rest of the world (us). The sad thing is, the people who put up the wall are part of us. The them should be "wall" that has been put up by these people that us cannot get over. Now we have institutionalized education in America that isn't helping, technology that drives markets instead driving it through the "wall", leaders in other countries not leading their people but driving them to starvation, and a whole lot of bitching. If only the them was the "wall".

I myself am a hypocrite. I have 5 bucks that I could give to someone across seas every week, but I choose not to because the "wall" keeps my money from being spent on the best thing possible; tearing down the fucking "wall".

Stickman

09-26-2009, 06:50 PM

Even though we live in a mostly capitalistic society we also live in a more or less democratic government.

This means that many important decisions will be made by hordes of your fellow man. Do you want the fate of your country to depend on a mass of uneducated fools?

So long as we live in a democracy it's in our best interest to educate everyone as much as possible.

Paul Siraisi

09-26-2009, 07:02 PM

You, and your little ragtag group of family and friends do not amount up to anything that the rest of the entire world ("them") should even be remotely concerned about. If this is the scope you set, you will be crushed by the competition of the rest of the world every time. But of course, you are free to live in your cowboy fantasy world. Let me know how this works out for you.

Timetraveler said "primarily" not 'exclusively'.

It is possible to include such gradations in a view of the world.

It means we who had written language 2000 years ago.
We who used it to develop the technology/polity that the whole world now enjoys, or seeks.
We who brought that to a new continent and made our homes here.
We who today live in those homes.
We in this home.

And them who is none of that. Or only some of that. Or only most of that.

timetraveler

09-26-2009, 07:41 PM

Timetraveler, correct me if I'm wrong. I have been under the impression that American high standard of living, comes mainly from technological advancement and agricultural superiority (which is also a product of technology.) I also thought that our technological advancement was a product of our huge advantage in higher education (specifically post-graduate study.)

In the 1950s until the 1980s we had the best university education in the world. Somewhere between the 1980s and 2000s the cost of a college education has risen so high that nobody can really afford to go to those "best" schools. I went to college but I didn't go to Yale. The cost of college now is so high that everyone who gets an education ends up $50,000-100,000 in debt. In the 1950s this education used to be free, you could get a free education and get a job. Now we have to pay $100,000 and be in debt for years so no our standard of living is not what it was in the 1950s. I may never get out of debt and I didn't even go to the most expensive school. I can forget about buying a house because I'll never have good credit.

Historically our strategy has been to lure foreign students to U.S. universities and then coerce them into staying here after graduation by offering a higher standard of living than home. America benefits by developing the technology and then selling it off to everyone else (first world and third world.) The crux of the strategy is that we take the best the world has to offer, not just what our education system provides. In this way, the U.S. benefits from a larger pool of baccalaureates. It helps to educate "them" because it makes "us" smarter.

I'm not against immigration. Immigration is how we pay the national debt and immigrants pay taxes.

Okay, this is just apples to oranges. Having concern for American suffering due to unemployment demonstrates some level of compassion, but equating that suffering to the suffering of third worlders is a ridiculous. If I am traveling down the road in my car, I am not morally exempt from helping someone on the side of the road who is on fire just because my air conditioner does not work and, hey we all got problems. I detest this kind of moral apathy disguised as necessity of self preservation. A better argument might be, "The whole world is hitched to the success of the American economy, so helping ourselves first helps everyone." This argument has flaws but at least it's genuine.

All suffering is equal. If you don't understand that then you've never truly suffered have you? If you lose a loved one in the first world it's the same feeling that you'd feel if you lose a loved one in the third world. If you are unemployed or unable to find a living in the first world it's the same feeling as being unable to find a job or a living in the third world. Failure and suffering create the same feeling of despair no matter where you live. People suffering in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina destroyed their lives are suffering just as much as people who lost their homes in Indonesia. The fact that you don't pay attention to the suffering in your own country if you are from the USA is only proving my point that people tend to only pay attention to the suffering of their own people. If your people are from the third world because you are a recent immigrant then of course you'll have more compassion for those people, they are your friends and family, they are your people.

And just because you detest self preservation it doesn't change the fact that most people in the USA are focused entirely on self preservation right now. Just like the people in the third world are focused entirely on self preservation. Rather than make subjective judgments about whose self preservation is more important, or who suffers more, try to be objective about it and accept that all are equal because it's consistent with the rest of your agenda. You can't expect me to take you serious when you say all humans are equal, but then you say the third world feels more pain.

timetraveler added to this post, 4 minutes and 50 seconds later...

Even though we live in a mostly capitalistic society we also live in a more or less democratic government.

This means that many important decisions will be made by hordes of your fellow man. Do you want the fate of your country to depend on a mass of uneducated fools?

So long as we live in a democracy it's in our best interest to educate everyone as much as possible.

The decisions are made by the top 1% of the country that has the money and power. That is not me. I can be as educated as I want to be, and we can all have masters degrees and CEOs will determine that a masters is the new bachelors and we will be right back where we were in 1950 with a highschool diploma only we'd be paying x3-4 as much for it.

timetraveler added to this post, 8 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Wow. Talk about narrowing the debate.

It's a small planet folks. And WE are all in it together, whether you like it or not. Nothing will change or improve until this false dichotomy of "them versus us" is abolished.

I want it to be but thats not how it currently is ordered under capitalism. It will always be us vs them if we are capitalists. We can't all have the good life, so we have to divide the world into us and them to decide who gets to live good and who gets to live in the slums. Even if we could change it under capitalism, the people in charge of capitalism don't want to change it.

Causa Mortis

09-26-2009, 07:57 PM

If we educate them their our children have more competition from them and theirs.
The only way education would work is if you are already a wealthy family and you need cheap labor. Otherwise educating them would only require we all get masters degrees or Phds to get a job.

In this economy and under our current system, it's either us or them. I'm more concerned about us than I am about them.

Again not really sure where to start but:

1. There is no "us" and there is no "them".

2. There's a thing called "real economic growth" that allows for generally rising standards of living.

3. The pie isn't fixed, its growing. You can enhance global equity without taking anything away from anyone else by allowing differing growth rates to persist.

4. Education undoubtedly makes individuals more productive in most types of jobs, and it also enhances technological growth, which also grows the pie.

I have been under the impression that American high standard of living, comes mainly from technological advancement and agricultural superiority (which is also a product of technology.)

US income levels relative to similarly capitalized countries like Britain, France, and Japan are explained by technological advancement, hours worked, keeping strong incentives in place for entrepreneurship, and working ungodly hours relative to most of the rest of the world. In short, its because we're more productive.

US income levels relative to poorly capitalized countries is explained by relative capital levels.

I also thought that our technological advancement was a product of our huge advantage in higher education (specifically post-graduate study.)

It is, along with preserving strong incentives for enterpreneurship.

In the 1950s until the 1980s we had the best university education in the world. Somewhere between the 1980s and 2000s the cost of a college education has risen so high that nobody can really afford to go to those "best" schools. I went to college but I didn't go to Yale. The cost of college now is so high that everyone who gets an education ends up $50,000-100,000 in debt. In the 1950s this education used to be free, you could get a free education and get a job. Now we have to pay $100,000 and be in debt for years so no our standard of living is not what it was in the 1950s. I may never get out of debt and I didn't even go to the most expensive school. I can forget about buying a house because I'll never have good credit.

The inflation in tuition during a glut of PhDs, along with the generally stagnating standard of living for the lower half on the income distribution, is explained politically. Funding for universities is typically the easiest thing for a politician to cut, and the Reagan/Bush 2/Glenn Beck conservative meme is generally hostile to education and to progressive taxation absolutely.

Stickman

09-26-2009, 08:01 PM

The decisions are made by the top 1% of the country that has the money and power. That is not me. I can be as educated as I want to be, and we can all have masters degrees and CEOs will determine that a masters is the new bachelors and we will be right back where we were in 1950 with a highschool diploma only we'd be paying x3-4 as much for it.

I'm talking about policy decisions by the government, not economic decisions made by the 'elite'. I get the same number of votes as the richest man in Canada so in theory we both have our say. It's in my best interest to have all Canadians as educated as feasibly possible so that they can make better decisions that effect my country.

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 12:11 AM

Again not really sure where to start but: 1. There is no "us" and there is no "them". If there is no "us" and "them", how can there be a "right" and "wrong"? If you don't believe there is an "us" and a "them", then you'd choose to let your family drown to save a foreign swimmer? Would you sacrifice your family for them? 2. There's a thing called "real economic growth" that allows for generally rising standards of living. Yeah for Paris Hilton, Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Oprah. You aren't fooling anyone, not all poor people are stupid. 3. The pie isn't fixed, its growing. You can enhance global equity without taking anything away from anyone else by allowing differing growth rates to persist. Once again I might be poor but I'm not stupid. I know a fixed game when I see one. I know when someone is cheating at poker. You aren't going to convince a smart poor person by appealing to the integrity of the market. You aren't going to convince a middle class person or even a slightly rich person. The only people who think like you do are people who actually have a lot of money and who don't ever have to worry about being poor, about losing their home, about being homeless, or going to prison, about their family members and friends losing their homes, being homeless or going to prison. What would you know about quality of life? 4. Education undoubtedly makes individuals more productive in most types of jobs, and it also enhances technological growth, which also grows the pie. BS. The pie hasn't grown since the 1950s. Nobody is fooled. You aren't going to fool liberals or conservatives anymore with your imaginary market capitalism. All of your talking points are counter to reality on the ground. I know reality because I live it, do you? US income levels relative to similarly capitalized countries like Britain, France, and Japan are explained by technological advancement, hours worked, keeping strong incentives in place for entrepreneurship, and working ungodly hours relative to most of the rest of the world. In short, its because we're more productive. Get your facts right. France has almost a month vacation time and they don't work nearly as many hours a week either. The only country that works almost as much as the USA is Britain, and the USA overall is the hardest working country in the world. Americans work more hours than any other country on the planet and our quality of life isn't the highest. We don't even have universal healthcare. We have millions of prisoners. We don't offer a free college education so even the people who work hard to educate themselves are in debt. US income levels relative to poorly capitalized countries is explained by relative capital levels. More economist crap. Nobody cares about relative capital and interest rate mumbo jumbo. People care about the fact that they are working harder and longer to have a lower quality of life than they had just 10 years ago. People are worried about the fact that they wont have any retirement and that they will be in debt until the day they die. When you try to act like there is no "us" and "them", it's because you are one of them and you want to spew economist nonsense to convince people that if they just work harder that the rich people will reward them. It hasn't happened in 40 years, it's never going to happen, and some of us see through the game. It is, along with preserving strong incentives for enterpreneurship. Where are the trillions of dollars for small businesses? Oh right it doesn't exist. Nobody cares about the small business owner. And you are only creating more division by using these talking points because you are making it clear that you are siding with foreign bankers. This is fine if you are directly related to these foreign bankers or if you are friends with foreign bankers, or if you are a foreign banker. Otherwise to support a bunch of foreign bankers who are doing nothing for you is completely illogical and they are "them." It's really simple, if they aren't going to help people in my family start businesses, or give people in my family jobs, if they aren't going to give me a job or help me from a business perspective then they are one of them and it doesn't matter who they are. I'm concerned about my own survival and the survive of the people who care about me, not about these banks who might lose money if my family members can't pay the personal debts, and I don't care if individuals overseas lose money if those individuals aren't doing anything to help me and/or the people I care about make money. So if you do care about all this enough to actually apply the talking points then I'm going to assume its in your personal self interest to do this and that somehow your paycheck is associated with supporting these talking points.

The inflation in tuition during a glut of PhDs, along with the generally stagnating standard of living for the lower half on the income distribution, is explained politically. Funding for universities is typically the easiest thing for a politician to cut, and the Reagan/Bush 2/Glenn Beck conservative meme is generally hostile to education and to progressive taxation absolutely. So now you want to blame it on politics? Yet you say theres no "us" and no "them"? There will always be an "us" and a "them". The people who care about you are your "us". The rest of the people are the "them." It's really that simple and thats what self interest and capitalism is all about. If you cannot set your priorities you aren't going to have much business sense.

If Glenn Beck were to offer me and the people I care about good paying jobs, then of course I'd like Glenn Beck. Are these people you are supporting giving you jobs and taking care of your family because if they aren't, you don't owe them anything.You only owe something to the people who care about you because that is your team.

timetraveler added to this post, 5 minutes and 0 seconds later...

I'm talking about policy decisions by the government, not economic decisions made by the 'elite'. I get the same number of votes as the richest man in Canada so in theory we both have our say. It's in my best interest to have all Canadians as educated as feasibly possible so that they can make better decisions that effect my country.

It doesn't matter who you vote for. We are a Republic not Democracy. You want to know why Obama and all the politicians pass bills which aren't in the interest of the American citizen? Lobbyists are more important than voters, and corporations make laws specifically to preserve their corporate dominance and monopolies. A majority of US laws including the upcoming healthcare bill are all about corporate interests. The insurance corporations write the bill and then pay the politicians to sign it. Politicians don't write the bills anymore. Our laws are written by big multinational corporations to protect their entitlement of infinite profits.

There is a reason why CEO's get paid more than everyone else and why the government can't do anything about it. The CEO's make the laws.

MikeC

09-27-2009, 02:22 AM

timetraveller: There is no excuse for complacency and your sense of entitlement for world's resources.

yoginimama

09-27-2009, 02:58 AM

The people who care about you are your "us". The rest of the people are the "them." It's really that simple and thats what self interest and capitalism is all about.

Self-interest and capitalism (among the capitalists, e.g. the people who own the capital) is what has screwed you. And the rest of America. And the Third World.

There's a difference between striving for the best in your life and wanting to have it ALL regardless of who you trample or bleed dry.

The Reagan Revolution crap that has blighted this nation and the world since 1980 is all about the latter.

They sell it to voters with the ridiculous notion that maybe you might win the lottery so it's in your interest to vote like a CEO.

But short-sighted CEOs don't even realize that, in the end, grabbing it all will hurt them as much as it hurts everyone else *because* it hurts everyone else. Do they want the world to turn into Tanzania? Yes, they do. But they'll be sorry if/when it happens.

But then it will be too late.

So: again: there is no First World versus Third World. There's all of us....and a few people who fail to realize that's the case.

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 05:52 AM

timetraveller: There is no excuse for complacency and your sense of entitlement for world's resources.

Entitlement? I never said I was entitled to it. I said we must compete for it. Nobody is entitled to anything and that includes the third world. Everyone has to compete under capitalism for quality of life, that is the system we have.

Self-interest and capitalism (among the capitalists, e.g. the people who own the capital) is what has screwed you. And the rest of America. And the Third World.

I agree, but what I'm saying is that it was morally right for them and from their perspective because it was the most logical choice they had. They had to do what is in their self interest. I do not blame the player for winning the game. I do not hate rich people for being good at winning under capitalism. If it's in your best interest and helps you to look out for your loved ones to screw over the rest of America then that is what I expect you to do. I don't think everyone who does this is evil or does this out of spite.

I do think that if someone has reached a point where they will never have to worry about money again in their lifetime, and their grandkids wont have to worry about money either, they should be donating money and giving back. They are in the position to change the system into something better. I do not believe the system we have is any where near perfect and I never claimed I would run things like this, I just claim that this is how it is and we must survive in it.

There's a difference between striving for the best in your life and wanting to have it ALL regardless of who you trample or bleed dry.

The Reagan Revolution crap that has blighted this nation and the world since 1980 is all about the latter.

You are speaking on politics now. But to speak on the ethics you are highlighting the difference between self interest and enlightened self interest. A lot of people who are logical enough to know what self interest is, have no idea what enlightened self interest is. Enlightened self interest is doing whats best for you and the world rather than just doing whats best for you the individual.

They sell it to voters with the ridiculous notion that maybe you might win the lottery so it's in your interest to vote like a CEO. But short-sighted CEOs don't even realize that, in the end, grabbing it all will hurt them as much as it hurts everyone else *because* it hurts everyone else. Do they want the world to turn into Tanzania? Yes, they do. But they'll be sorry if/when it happens. But then it will be too late.

That is not how it's sold. It's sold as "vote like your boss votes because your boss said so and you risk getting fired if you don't." so if you want to know why a lot of people spew the talking points of their CEO bosses, it's because thats their job. It's not their official job but I've heard stories about bosses telling their employees who to vote for indirectly and sometimes directly in the form of a memo. So if you don't vote how they want you to vote, you are out of a job.

Okay just imagine working for a company that is pressuring congress to vote to pass a bill that will directly give funds to the company you work for, and at the same time change the laws so as to help your company resist competition and maintain it's monopoly. Now imagine your boss sends an email to every employee telling them whats going on, and that everyones job depends on what happens with this bill. Don't you think this is going to influence the voting habits of people working for that big corporation?

So: again: there is no First World versus Third World. There's all of us....and a few people who fail to realize that's the case.[

You are wrong. There was never an "all of us" anymore than we have "human rights", a "World President" or a "Global Currency." Sure if we want those things we can work to build it. If we have a world currency, a world government, global taxes, to match with these multi national corporations, this would reduce the "us" vs "them" mentality but not by much. The reason it wont reduce by much is because you are who your friends and family are. If you've traveled all around the world and you have friends in all sorts of countries then I can believe you when you say "us" is a global us. If you say that you speak 5 languages, and can communicate with multiple cultures then I'll believe you when you say your "us" is a global "us". But if you are like most people and you just speak 1 or 2 languages, have only been to 1 or 2 countries, and most of your friends are from the USA, then you are going to have to accept the fact that your "us" is very American.

If you want to expand peoples us, start with a global currency, then let people have global visas so they can work in any country in the world. Then help people to make friends with people in every country in the world. Encourage interracial marriage so that their family includes a bigger us. But if you look at the typical American, even the progressive Americans, they usually marry another American. They often never left America before so they don't have friends in other countries. They usually only speak English so they aren't even capable of making friends with people in the third world in most cases.

My "Us" is limited by my ability to speak enough languages, travel to enough countries, and make enough friendships to expand my "Us." My "Us" is limited by my ability to work only in the USA. My "Us" is limited by the fact that I don't have the money to travel. My "Us" is even limited in my own country where they speak the same language as me, pay taxes to the same government as me, and they just don't like me so I'm not one of them. Everybody has a limited "Us" and the reason "Us" is limited is because the majority of the world does not care about you personally. If they don't love you, they aren't with you.

This is what Us vs Them really means. It's not culture, because I'm willing to reach beyond my culture to expand my us. It's based on the ability of people to love each other, and the way our world exists as it is, people love those who they know well. Yeah you have some rare people who love everyone but thats not a realistic survival strategy in todays world so you'll have the few people who love you and then theres everyone else. Where are your priorities?

Stickman

09-27-2009, 09:21 AM

It doesn't matter who you vote for. We are a Republic not Democracy. You want to know why Obama and all the politicians pass bills which aren't in the interest of the American citizen? Lobbyists are more important than voters, and corporations make laws specifically to preserve their corporate dominance and monopolies. A majority of US laws including the upcoming healthcare bill are all about corporate interests. The insurance corporations write the bill and then pay the politicians to sign it. Politicians don't write the bills anymore. Our laws are written by big multinational corporations to protect their entitlement of infinite profits.

There is a reason why CEO's get paid more than everyone else and why the government can't do anything about it. The CEO's make the laws.

Politicians vote in the interests of lobbyists because they can get away with it. If their constituents had zero tolerance for that type of behavior they wouldn't do it. Obama ran on such a platform and although he isn't 100% clean he's cleaner then any other out there. Congress and the Senate is still filled with "blue dog democrats" and republicans. In my opinion Obama should have cleaned the house and the senate first then tackled health care later. Until he does so, congress will always vote in favor of the rich, not the public.

Politicians still need to be elected and the power to elect someone belongs to everyone equally. It's because the public at large doesn't comprehend the concept of "conflict of interest" does the public allow this to happen. Education, of course, can fix that.

pocohauntus

09-27-2009, 10:32 AM

There's a difference between striving for the best in your life and wanting to have it ALL regardless of who you trample or bleed dry.
Yeah, and just how many of "them" here even understand this? huh? huh?

Paul Siraisi

09-27-2009, 01:18 PM

Timetraveler, correct me if I'm wrong.

....coerce them into staying here after graduation by offering a higher standard of living than home.

Offering a higher standard of living is not 'coercion' by any reasonable understanding of that word.

Stick to the truth.

Causa Mortis

09-27-2009, 05:12 PM

If there is no "us" and "them", how can there be a "right" and "wrong"? If you don't believe there is an "us" and a "them", then you'd choose to let your family drown to save a foreign swimmer? Would you sacrifice your family for them?

You're creating all kinds of false dichotomies that don't exist, that are self-rationalizing, and that I don't have any interest in engaging.

I know a fixed game when I see one. I know when someone is cheating at poker. You aren't going to convince a smart poor person by appealing to the integrity of the market. You aren't going to convince a middle class person or even a slightly rich person. The only people who think like you do are people who actually have a lot of money and who don't ever have to worry about being poor, about losing their home, about being homeless, or going to prison, about their family members and friends losing their homes, being homeless or going to prison. What would you know about quality of life? BS. The pie hasn't grown since the 1950s.

The pie has grown quite a bit.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That labor's share has been dwindling since the Reagan revolution is a political trend, not a reflection of the size of the pie or an economic issue.

The implication is that you should make sure you have highly marketable skills. Like critical thinking abilities and emotional control.

Nobody is fooled. You aren't going to fool liberals or conservatives anymore with your imaginary market capitalism. All of your talking points are counter to reality on the ground. I know reality because I live it, do you?

No, I live in fantasy land where I think industry, thrift, creativity, and risk taking should be rewarded. I don't think that you should feel as though you are entitled to a great lifestyle just because you got a BA. I also think income distribution in this country is unacceptable.

Get your facts right. France has almost a month vacation time and they don't work nearly as many hours a week either. The only country that works almost as much as the USA is Britain, and the USA overall is the hardest working country in the world. Americans work more hours than any other country on the planet and our quality of life isn't the highest. We don't even have universal healthcare. We have millions of prisoners. We don't offer a free college education so even the people who work hard to educate themselves are in debt.

I stated exactly what you did, only in less histrionic tones.

More economist crap.

The difference in income between, say, the USA and the Congo is largely explained by relative capital amounts. As in roads, schools, bridges, factories, trains, etc. Physical capital is vital for going from a 3rd world to a 1st world economy.

When you try to act like there is no "us" and "them", it's because you are one of them and you want to spew economist nonsense to convince people that if they just work harder that the rich people will reward them.

Its not an economic perspective that there's no "us v them" its a philosophical and relational one. I happen to like many of the immigrants and foreign students who come here relative to entitled individuals who expect the world to roll out in front of them because they got a BA.

It hasn't happened in 40 years, it's never going to happen, and some of us see through the game. Where are the trillions of dollars for small businesses? Oh right it doesn't exist. Nobody cares about the small business owner. And you are only creating more division by using these talking points because you are making it clear that you are siding with foreign bankers. This is fine if you are directly related to these foreign bankers or if you are friends with foreign bankers, or if you are a foreign banker. Otherwise to support a bunch of foreign bankers who are doing nothing for you is completely illogical and they are "them." It's really simple, if they aren't going to help people in my family start businesses, or give people in my family jobs, if they aren't going to give me a job or help me from a business perspective then they are one of them and it doesn't matter who they are. I'm concerned about my own survival and the survive of the people who care about me, not about these banks who might lose money if my family members can't pay the personal debts, and I don't care if individuals overseas lose money if those individuals aren't doing anything to help me and/or the people I care about make money. So if you do care about all this enough to actually apply the talking points then I'm going to assume its in your personal self interest to do this and that somehow your paycheck is associated with supporting these talking points.

...

I read this gigantic text wall. Its a sort of disjointed rant against a lot of stuff, none of which is worth responding to.

So now you want to blame it on politics? Yet you say theres no "us" and no "them"? There will always be an "us" and a "them". The people who care about you are your "us". The rest of the people are the "them." It's really that simple and thats what self interest and capitalism is all about. If you cannot set your priorities you aren't going to have much business sense.

The decline in the standard of living since the 1980s is explained by the fact that there's been a political-economic backlash against them while they've simultaneously faced a lot of competition from abroad. Its a tough place to be in.

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 07:33 PM

Politicians vote in the interests of lobbyists because they can get away with it. If their constituents had zero tolerance for that type of behavior they wouldn't do it. Obama ran on such a platform and although he isn't 100% clean he's cleaner then any other out there. Congress and the Senate is still filled with "blue dog democrats" and republicans. In my opinion Obama should have cleaned the house and the senate first then tackled health care later. Until he does so, congress will always vote in favor of the rich, not the public. Politicians still need to be elected and the power to elect someone belongs to everyone equally. It's because the public at large doesn't comprehend the concept of "conflict of interest" does the public allow this to happen. Education, of course, can fix that.

No offense but you are naive. Corporations make the laws no matter which party you support. The only difference is the corporations making the laws might change depending on the party. You aren't going to defund Blackwater, or Lockheed. You aren't going to keep Obama from bailing out the big banks. These Corporations run the government, not the other way around. It's never a Democracy, always a Republic.

You're creating all kinds of false dichotomies that don't exist, that are self-rationalizing, and that I don't have any interest in engaging.

You are promoting talking points. When you say the pie has grown, it has grown only for the top 1%. It has not grown for me. And there is nothing you can say to change my opinion when unemployment is nearly 20% in some places. You simply are spreading the gospel of GDP, which has nothing to do with quality of life or median salary.

That labor's share has been dwindling since the Reagan revolution is a political trend, not a reflection of the size of the pie or an economic issue. The implication is that you should make sure you have highly marketable skills. Like critical thinking abilities and emotional control.

Now you promote the myth that hard work shall set us free. If we just work hard enough we will be made rich too. It's BS. Talking about critical thinking and emotional control? As if all the poorest people are without those specific skills? A lot of skilled people are being laid off.

No, I live in fantasy land where I think industry, thrift, creativity, and risk taking should be rewarded. I don't think that you should feel as though you are entitled to a great lifestyle just because you got a BA. I also think income distribution in this country is unacceptable.

It doesn't matter what you believe, thats not how it is. You can work hard your entire life and never be rewarded so hard work isn't the answer. You can be smart and get a degree and never be rewarded so having a degree isn't the answer. The answer is to have the right friends. You aren't fooling anyone with your capitalist mythology. While nobody is entitled to have a grand lifestyle, nobody should be made to suffer either (in a world where everyone is equal). Since you don't believe in the world of everyone being equal there is an “Us” and a “Them” even in your world view. Your “Us” are the people who think like you, so how are you any different? You want to see people who have your traits and who think like you be rewarded.

The difference in income between, say, the USA and the Congo is largely explained by relative capital amounts. As in roads, schools, bridges, factories, trains, etc. Physical capital is vital for going from a 3rd world to a 1st world economy.

You don't know what you are talking about. You believe in this idealism which says the free market is fair and that hard work pays. It's not true anymore. You can build up all the bridges to no where in the Congo and it's not going to make western countries trade with the Congo. You fail to take into account nepotism. You fail to account for the fact that people don't work to display their emotional control or develop and serve the market. People work to support themselves and their families. I think you ought to read some Adam Smith and understand that the butcher doesn't work for any other reason than to support himself and his people. That is what homoeconomicus is and that is what we are.

Its not an economic perspective that there's no "us v them" its a philosophical and relational one. I happen to like many of the immigrants and foreign students who come here relative to entitled individuals who expect the world to roll out in front of them because they got a BA.

Wait are you trying to say you happen to like the immigrants more than your family members? If thats true then you must not like your friends and family very much.(If this isn't what you are implying then what are you trying to say?) You happen to like the immigrants because they are suckered into working for you for half the price of the average American worker? Yeah of course you'd prefer people who can barely speak English because then you can give them a bad contract and they wont know any better. A lot of Americans prefer illegal immigrant labor because the illegal immigrant is the easiest to exploit.

You don't have to worry about these people forming a union, they can barely speak English.

The decline in the standard of living since the 1980s is explained by the fact that there's been a political-economic backlash against them while they've simultaneously faced a lot of competition from abroad. Its a tough place to be in.

You are an obvious pro immigrant liberal. You probably are a college professor or some sort of intellectual type. You probably don't have any family members who are struggling to make ends meet, or you just don't care about them. And all of your friends are probably as rich as you are.

Why should I believe you are compassionate if you don't have compassion for the people closest to you? A lot of people will donate to charity or talk like they feel compassion for abandoned children in Africa, while they ignore the abandoned children in their own country. People judge you by how you treat your own, and if you don't show compassion for your friends and family nobody will take you serious when you donate to some far out charity. You talk about entitlement as if I believe CEO's are entitled to millions of dollars, I don't. I don't think anyone is entitled to be rich, but thats not how the game is being played.

CEOs are changing the laws and rules of the game so that they can protect their entitlements. CEO's are outsourcing and promoting immigration to protect their entitlements. Emotion has nothing to do with it, it's completely logical for them to work in their own self interest. But the myths you preach are designed to keep poor and middle class individuals from doing what is in their self interest.

It's not in my self interest to care what happens to CEOs salaries. I'm not a CEO. It's not in my self interest to care what happens to people who don't care what happens to me. So those people are “Them.” You can care about “Them” if you want to, but if you let people who care about you suffer because you spent your life helping people who don't care whether you live or die, then who is the fool?

Be logical, and do whats in your self interest, thats all I'm promoting with my posts. It doesn't matter what system we have or whether its fair or rigged, do you. Stop worrying about politics because who is in office wont make any difference.

Stickman

09-27-2009, 07:42 PM

You are naive. Corporations make the laws no matter which party you support. The only difference is the corporations making the laws might change depending on the party. You aren't going to defund Blackwater, or Lockheed. You aren't going to keep Obama from bailing out the big banks. These Corporations run the government, not the other way around. It's never a Democracy, always a Republic.

Yo, other than this quote, you mis-attributed a whole bunch of quotes to me.

Moving on...

Vote third party or form your own. You're not likely to win but it's not impossible. The things you need to run a campaign is money and publicity and with the internet it's possible to get both without being a rich and connected. Look at the campaigns run by Obama and Ron Paul. No lobbyist or corporate sponsorship, and relatively unknown people. If every congressmen and senator ran campaigns like that than you'd have a government that's clean as a whistle without any corporate ties, bias, or conflicts of interest.

It's idealistic, I'll admit but it's not impossible. Of course, it starts with a well educated society that knows better than to listen to the bull on Fox and talk-radio.

Causa Mortis

09-27-2009, 07:54 PM

YWhen you say the pie has grown, it has grown only for the top 1%. It has not grown for me. And there is nothing you can say to change my opinion when unemployment is nearly 20% in some places. You simply are spreading the gospel of GDP, which has nothing to do with quality of life or median salary.

GDP is the pie. Politics is the ultimate determinant of how it gets divied up.

Now you promote the myth that hard work shall set us free. If we just work hard enough we will be made rich too. It's BS. Talking about critical thinking and emotional control? As if all the poorest people are without those specific skills? A lot of skilled people are being laid off.

I was suggesting that your personal economic struggles are rather predictable. Entitlement, anger, an expectation of croneyism, and a subtle contempt of work isn't exactly going to do anyone any good.

It doesn't matter what you believe, thats not how it is. You can work hard your entire life and never be rewarded so hard work isn't the answer. You can be smart and get a degree and never be rewarded so having a degree isn't the answer. The answer is to have the right friends. You aren't fooling anyone with your capitalist mythology. While nobody is entitled to have a grand lifestyle, nobody should be made to suffer either (in a world where everyone is equal). Since you don't believe in the world of everyone being equal there is an “Us” and a “Them” even in your world view. Your “Us” are the people who think like you, so how are you any different? You want to see people who have your traits and who think like you be rewarded.

I actually think that suffering should happen for those who parade around an entitlement mentality, show a great deal of anger, who deny the value of industry, and who aren't interested in creativity.

These things aren't conducive to a productive or happy society. Accordingly, they're punished.

You don't know what you are talking about. You believe in this idealism which says the free market is fair and that hard work pays.

No I don't; I'm only moderately pro market, and have been derided by Ray9 and Hubcap in other threads for too much liberalism.

There are mindsets, however, that are rather antisocial and rather lazy, and I don't think society should reward those who are detracting from it.

It's not true anymore. You can build up all the bridges to no where in the Congo and it's not going to make western countries trade with the Congo. You fail to take into account nepotism.

Trade isn't what makes a 3rd world country so poor. The absence of an adequate amount of capital is. Given your histrionic tone though, I'm kinda out of patience with this conversation.

You fail to account for the fact that people don't work to display their emotional control or develop and serve the market. People work to support themselves and their families. I think you ought to read some Adam Smith and understand that the butcher doesn't work for any other reason than to support himself and his people. That is what homoeconomicus is and that is what we are.

So what motivates me to achieve is consumption for "my people"? This is sounding a bit like a racial argument, and I don't care about race at all. I can assure you that I'm quite a bit more complex than that.

You happen to like the immigrants more than your family members? You must not like your family very much. You happen to like the immigrants because they are suckered into working for you for half the price of the average American worker? Yeah of course you'd prefer people who can barely speak English because then you can give them a bad contract and they wont know any better. A lot of Americans prefer illegal immigrant labor because the illegal immigrant is the easiest to exploit.

You don't have to worry about these people forming a union, they can barely speak English.

The immigrants I know probably have more coherent writing skills than you do. They're here legally. They're mostly very intelligent, very humble, very hard working people. They also are here to work, create, and do, not whine about how the deck is stacked against them.

You are an obvious pro immigrant liberal. You probably are a college professor or some sort of intellectual type. You probably don't have any family members who are struggling to make ends meet, or you just don't care about them. And all of your friends are probably as rich as you are.

I'm a graduate student, and I'm completely broke. My personal financial circumstances are none of your business.

Be logical, and do whats in your self interest, thats all I'm promoting with my posts. It doesn't matter what system we have or whether its fair or rigged, do you. Stop worrying about politics because who is in office wont make any difference.

So what will? Thinly-veiled racism on an internet forum?

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 07:57 PM

Yo, other than this quote, you mis-attributed a whole bunch of quotes to me.

Moving on...

Vote third party or form your own. You're not likely to win but it's not impossible. The things you need to run a campaign is money and publicity and with the internet it's possible to get both without being a rich and connected. Look at the campaigns run by Obama and Ron Paul. No lobbyist or corporate sponsorship, and relatively unknown people. If every congressmen and senator ran campaigns like that than you'd have a government that's clean as a whistle without any corporate ties, bias, or conflicts of interest.

It's idealistic, I'll admit but it's not impossible. Of course, it starts with a well educated society that knows better than to listen to the bull on Fox and talk-radio.

I don't think the problem is political, I think the problem is cultural. In specific corporate culture is where the sense of entitlement is at it's peak. You have banks which are too big to fail, and bankers giving themselves bonuses while the rest of the country is losing their jobs. You have an entire economy based around debt and serving the interests of CEOs.

I know a lot of people don't like what I'm saying because they don't want the world to be this way. They don't want a world of "Us" vs "Them", but when times get tough people depend on their friends and family. It's human nature to function as "Us" vs "Them" and the only people who can afford to not function in this state of mind are people who are rich enough to be beyond the economic reality of our generation.

I'm willing to discuss solutions to the "Us" vs "Them" situation but I must first get everyone to admit that this is the situation. I think a lot of people would rather live in the world of delusion than accept the fact that the majority of the world does not care about them or their loved ones. So they will make believe that the human species is more enlightened than it is.

Yes some humans are enlightened and know its in their self interest to help strangers, but the vast majority will let you die and not lose any sleep. The only reason many people aren't in third world status right now is because their ancestors thought in an "Us" vs "Them" paradigm.
I will be first to admit that the "Us" vs "Them" of the past which was based on concepts like "race" and "culture" are completely flawed from a logical perspective. The post racial world "Us" is better represented as the people who love you making up that "Us", and the people who don't care about you making up the "Them". It's something anybody from a 100 year old adult to a 5 year old can understand.

Remember not to take candy from a stranger? Not to get into a strange car with a stranger? Even when we are kids we know there is an "Us" and a "Them", and the predators are the "Them." As we become adults this sense of "Us" and "Them" only becomes more refined until we have a very narrow "Us" and a very wide "Them." This is entirely cultural and capitalism only promotes this because the kind of capitalism we have is ruthless and rewards logical predators. If you do whats in your self interest even if it hurts many of them, as long as it makes us richer we tend not to care.

You want to change that? Let's discuss how. But as things are now it's going to be "Us" vs "Them" and as the economy gets worse, its going to become much more polarized until even many of the people on this forum agree with me that there is a narrow "Us" and a huge amount of "Them". If you look up concepts like 6 degrees of separation, and learn about social network analysis then you will see that people tend to help those who are literally close to them. You can look at someones friends list on facebook and get an idea of who their "Us" might be.

Visum

09-27-2009, 08:03 PM

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 08:33 PM

GDP is the pie. Politics is the ultimate determinant of how it gets divied up.*

The problem is corporate culture which creates the mechanisms which decide that certain professions are entitled to get rich. You said we shouldn't have entitlements? A CEO's salary should be capped to only be a certain percentage of the corporate income. If the corporation is in the red the CEO shouldn't be making millions, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. A CEO's salary should be indexed to the success or failure of the corporation. Then we can talk about the middle class feeling they are entitled.

I was suggesting that your personal economic struggles are rather predictable. Entitlement, anger, an expectation of croneyism, and a subtle contempt of work isn't exactly going to do anyone any good.

First I say there is a “Us” and a “Them” and nobody is entitled to anything. Now you say I think I'm entitled? I don't expect “Them” to give me anything. So no I don't think “They” owe me anything just like I don't owe “Them” anything in return. I only work for my “Us.” I don't work for “Them.” I don't have a contempt of work, and I expect nepotism not just cronyism. The point is I see the system from a social network analysis and game theory perspective. I expect you to help your people just as you can expect me to help mine, and if we want then we can be friends and help each others people but I expect you to be loyal to the people who love you just as I'm loyal to the people who love me. That is human nature.

GDP is the pie. Politics is the ultimate determinant of how it gets divied up. I was suggesting that your personal economic struggles are rather predictable. Entitlement, anger, an expectation of croneyism, and a subtle contempt of work isn't exactly going to do anyone any good. I actually think that suffering should happen for those who parade around an entitlement mentality, show a great deal of anger, who deny the value of industry, and who aren't interested in creativity.

So your “Us” is the people who think like you. The problem you will have is that if you ever meet someone who is a good person but who is not politically the same as you, you'll automatically create a “Them” box and shove them into it. I don't judge people by how they think, I judge people by how they treat other people. If someone is a good friend to me, and loyal, they become part of “Us”, but if they aren't then they remain one of “Them.” It has nothing to do with who they voted for or any of that political crap. I'm just as open to a friendship with Democrats as I am with Republicans, or Independents, or Fascists, Communists or Anarchists.

These things aren't conducive to a productive or happy society. Accordingly, they're punished.

How can you assume I'm against these things? I'm not against work, or productivity. I just think we are shipping our best jobs overseas and we aren't creating any new good jobs to replace them. If we were replacing old jobs with newer better jobs and anyone who wanted to get a good job could have one, then there would be nothing to complain about. The problem I have with you is you expect everyone to love the corporate culture, you have to realize that not everyone can be happy in that kind of job. There might be a job for everyone, but that shouldn't be based entirely on the needs of the market. The market exists to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve the market.
Quality of life is improved when people can do the jobs which make them happy and have those jobs pay them enough money to live and feel safe. I never said we have to make everyone a millionaire, I'm just saying that people are miserable for the sake of market growth and thats no reason to be miserable. GDP is just a number representing growth and nothing more.

There are mindsets, however, that are rather antisocial and rather lazy, and I don't think society should reward those who are detracting from it.

So anyone who doesn't think like you, no matter their level of skill or talent, should suffer?
Why should everyone have to think like you do to survive? Why should everyone have to think like you to be happy? This is about as selfish of an attitude as can exist, why should you decide who can and cannot be happy? If you don't like the products or services they produce then you don't have to buy them, but why should you decide that certain people shouldn't have a job at all because you don't like how they think? This is precisely the problem I'm talking about with corporate culture and it's why so many people are miserable, angry etc. It does not help anyone to have a one size fits all attitude about this.

Trade isn't what makes a 3rd world country so poor. The absence of an adequate amount of capital is. Given your histrionic tone though, I'm kinda out of patience with this conversation.

I'm just giving an analysis of how things actually are. You are talking about how you want things to be and how you want people to think. People are going to think in whatever way makes them happy and you'll have to deal with it or put the people who think differently from you into the “Them” category. That will ultimately shrink the size of your “Us”, and it won't make the world more productive.

So what motivates me to achieve is consumption for "my people"? This is sounding a bit like a racial argument, and I don't care about race at all. I can assure you that I'm quite a bit more complex than that.

Some of “Us” have families who are multi-racial, and some of “Us” include friendships with any individual who care about “Us.” It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with family and friendship. The fact that you jump to the conclusion that my “people” is my “race” is showing me that you don't grasp the concept of “Us” and “Them” that I've outlined. “Us” are the people who love you, and not everybody of your race loves you, and not everybody outside of your race is one of “Them.” It's based on who you know, who your friends are, who loves you, not race.

The immigrants I know probably have more coherent writing skills than you do. They're here legally. They're mostly very intelligent, very humble, very hard working people. They also are here to work, create, and do, not whine about how the deck is stacked against them.

You assume I'm a racist and that I don't have friends of multiple races or that I'm closed minded and hate all immigrants. You are completely wrong. My “Us” will include anyone who cares about me, they are my people. Everyone else is “Them” and it wont matter if they look like me, and speak my language. If they don't have love for me they'll never be “Us.”

I'm a graduate student, and I'm completely broke. My personal financial circumstances are none of your business.

Thats fine, but you still don't understand the logic of my arguments. You interpreted it into a racial world view when I never said race had anything to do with it.

So what will? Thinly-veiled racism on an internet forum?

Race has nothing to do with my “Us” and “Them.” There are others who might have faith in their race, but I'm not loyal to race. I'm loyal to individuals who are loyal to me, my “Us” is very personal. It's a family thing, not a racial thing. If I don't like you as a person, it wont matter what race you are, what language you speak, where you grew up. If you aren't with me then you are with them. And I do want people of all races to be with me, I want the biggest "Us" I can have.

Stickman

09-27-2009, 08:39 PM

Stuff

So if I understand you correctly, "Us vs. Them" isn't your mentality or orientation towards the world, rather something you perceive of as a problem ie. the cause of many of the world's problems.

This thread isn't about convincing us that there's no reason that we should help other people but rather the incentive structure of the "system" is made such that we're rewarded for bringing down our fellow man.

Am I correct? If I am, I don't think your OP reflects this newfound understanding regarding your worldview that I have right now.

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 08:44 PM

Suppressing others for your gain is short sighted. I am of the mindset that you are as strong as your weakest link.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is an example of enlightened self interest. But the rest of humanity has not reached that level of sophistication. We aren't even close to being ready and the vast majority of people have a much more narrow mindset than "you are as strong as your weakest link." So what you say is logically correct but people just aren't ready to be that logical.

timetraveler added to this post, 5 minutes and 39 seconds later...

So if I understand you correctly, "Us vs. Them" isn't your mentality or orientation towards the world, rather something you perceive of as a problem ie. the cause of many of the world's problems.

This thread isn't about convincing us that there's no reason that we should help other people but rather the incentive structure of the "system" is made such that we're rewarded for bringing down our fellow man.

Am I correct? If I am, I don't think your OP reflects this newfound understanding regarding your worldview that I have right now.

"Us" vs "Them" is my world view, but only because I'm forced to accept this world view because the world is offering me no better alternative. Yes I want human rights, and world peace, and jobs and a decent quality of life for every human born from this point forward. But it's not going to happen in my life time. When people talk about there being no "Us" and no "Them" they are talking from a perspective that cannot exist in the current world. These views are before their time.

Yes we finally are getting beyond the warped racist world views where "Us" and "Them" was based on race. But as things are today "Us" and "Them" is based on religion and culture instead. My world view is about as advanced as my society will allow. My "Us" are the people who love me, and my "Them" are the people who don't. I am forced to choose between "Us" and "Them" based on the fact that the survival of myself and the people who care about me is in no way guaranteed. And even quality of life isn't guaranteed, and I don't want anyone who cares about me to suffer and be miserable no matter how they think or who they voted for.

We do not live in a world that takes care of people, we live in a world where people take care of themselves. The only way this is going to change is if we become communist and let robots do all the suffering, otherwise we will always have to compete for the basics, and then again compete for quality of life.

Stickman

09-27-2009, 09:04 PM

"Us" vs "Them" is my world view, but only because I'm forced to accept this world view because the world is offering me no better alternative. Yes I want human rights, and world peace, and jobs and a decent quality of life for every human born from this point forward. But it's not going to happen in my life time. When people talk about there being no "Us" and no "Them" they are talking from a perspective that cannot exist in the current world. These views are before their time.

Yes we finally are getting beyond the warped racist world views where "Us" and "Them" was based on race. But as things are today "Us" and "Them" is based on religion and culture instead. My world view is about as advanced as my society will allow. My "Us" are the people who love me, and my "Them" are the people who don't. I am forced to choose between "Us" and "Them" based on the fact that the survival of myself and the people who care about me is in no way guaranteed. And even quality of life isn't guaranteed, and I don't want anyone who cares about me to suffer and be miserable no matter how they think or who they voted for.

We do not live in a world that takes care of people, we live in a world where people take care of themselves. The only way this is going to change is if we become communist and let robots do all the suffering, otherwise we will always have to compete for the basics, and then again compete for quality of life.

People help each other out all the time. At my hypothetical job I help people out by writing software that makes their lives more enjoyable/convenient and in return society gives me a bunch of coupons (money) which I can redeem for food and hookers smiles.

People think that they're only taking care of themselves and that they're totally independent but that's not true. We're all helping each other out, it just doesn't feel like it because ultimately my motivations for helping other people are selfish. The truth is that we're all interdependent in a capitalist society.

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 09:16 PM

People help each other out all the time. At my hypothetical job I help people out by writing software that makes their lives more enjoyable/convenient and in return society gives me a bunch of coupons (money) which I can redeem for food and hookers smiles.

People think that they're only taking care of themselves and that they're totally independent but that's not true. We're all helping each other out, it just doesn't feel like it because ultimately my motivations for helping other people are selfish. The truth is that we're all interdependent in a capitalist society.

Yes but you do it because you get paid to do it. You wouldn't do it for free. You are doing this because you are made safe and the people you care about are made safe by your paycheck.

I never said people are totally independent. I say the only people you have are your "Us." And that is why you must protect your "Us." I said the reason people go to work is for their "Us.", and if their job happens to be the sorta job which helps the rest of the world then they can be proud of their job, but if a job pays well then its a good job. Ultimately the job that pays well is better than the job that is good for the world because the job that pays well helps you to protect yourself and your "Us." If people don't like the way the world is organized then they should start making new people the rich/elite. Otherwise this is the world we will always have because the same personality types will dominate the same professions and make the same mistakes.

Causa Mortis

09-27-2009, 09:49 PM

I'm just giving an analysis of how things actually are. You are talking about how you want things to be and how you want people to think.

My statement that 1st v 3rd world incomes are explained by relative levels of physical capitalization is an objective statement. That's not an emotional argument.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In short, relative capitalization levels explains about 80% of the variance in output per worker. The theoretical underpinnings to support that this is a causal relationship are also strong. More factories, roads, trains, offices, etc, generally make us more productive.

Thats fine, but you still don't understand the logic of my arguments.

Well that must be because I'm talking out of my ass.

And, YES, I do think that behaviors that benefit society should be rewarded, and those that don't help or harm society should be punished.

As to the rest, I'm rather bored with the scorned entitlement stuff and who you consider human and less than human.

Stickman

09-27-2009, 10:03 PM

Yes but you do it because you get paid to do it. You wouldn't do it for free. You are doing this because you are made safe and the people you care about are made safe by your paycheck.

I never said people are totally independent. I say the only people you have are your "Us." And that is why you must protect your "Us." I said the reason people go to work is for their "Us.", and if their job happens to be the sorta job which helps the rest of the world then they can be proud of their job, but if a job pays well then its a good job. Ultimately the job that pays well is better than the job that is good for the world because the job that pays well helps you to protect yourself and your "Us." If people don't like the way the world is organized then they should start making new people the rich/elite. Otherwise this is the world we will always have because the same personality types will dominate the same professions and make the same mistakes.

I don't really mean any disrespect but I keep reading your writing and I can't make any sense out of it. I sense a general frustration against conservatives (or maybe I'm projecting) and the divisive rhetoric that generally surrounds politics nowadays.

I don't really see anything that forces you to accept this rhetoric and there are plenty of alternatives. If you go to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (I'm not plugging a website; I'm making a point. I swear) then you'd see a community full of 'elites' trying to make a true difference in the world for people who aren't them.

There's a variety of NGOs, charities and causes out there where you can contribute and help out other people, you just have to look for them.

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 10:05 PM

Well that must be because I'm talking out of my ass.

And, YES, I do think that behaviors that benefit society should be rewarded, and those that don't help or harm society should be punished.

As to the rest, I'm rather bored with the scorned entitlement stuff and who you consider human and less than human.

When did I ever say I considered anyone less than human? When did I say I was against human rights? When did I say anyone is entitled to anything?

You are creating strawman arguments and putting words in my mouth that I have never said. You fail to grasp my arguments, re-read all that I have said.

Causa Mortis

09-27-2009, 10:07 PM

When did I ever say I considered anyone less than human? When did I say I was against human rights? When did I say anyone is entitled to anything?

You are creating strawman arguments and putting words in my mouth that I have never said. You fail to grasp my arguments, re-read all that I have said.

So the reason no one can understand your arguments is that our reading comprehension is low. Got it.

Could it possibly be that the arguments are poorly formed, not supported with significant rationale or evidence, and generally incoherent, and that's why no one can understand them?

timetraveler

09-27-2009, 10:26 PM

I don't really mean any disrespect but I keep reading your writing and I can't make any sense out of it. I sense a general frustration against conservatives (or maybe I'm projecting) and the divisive rhetoric that generally surrounds politics nowadays.

Politics have nothing to do with my arguments. My arguments are based on logic and reason alone. My argument is do whats best for you and those who care about you. Politics actually convince people to do stuff which is against their self interest. I don't accept any political ideology which is not in my best interest at any given time. What divides us is not politics, what divides us is the lack of love for your fellow man. The fact that not everyone in this world loves you is the basis behind "Us" and "Them", and it's probably never going to be a world where everyone loves you. There will always be a "Them" who are trying to prey on you, or who hate you, or who just don't care if you live or die, or how you feel.

I don't really see anything that forces you to accept this rhetoric and there are plenty of alternatives. If you go to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (I'm not plugging a website; I'm making a point. I swear) then you'd see a community full of 'elites' trying to make a true difference in the world for people who aren't them.

We don't live in a world free from suffering. We wont ever have a world free from suffering in my lifetime. I never claimed all elites are "Them". I did not outline my "Them" as the elites as some people have done for political reasons. My "Them" are the people who don't care about me, whether I'm suffering or not, or about what my future is going to be like. Those people are the "Them". The majority of "Them" don't hate me and only take the positions they take for sake of business (profit potential). They are doing what is best for their families when they sell us out.

There's a variety of NGOs, charities and causes out there where you can contribute and help out other people, you just have to look

If the NGO's and charities offer me and the people I care about jobs then I will gladly contribute. The problem is even the NGO's aren't hiring right now. And you cannot expect a person to donate to charity when they cannot pay their bills. I'm the sorta person who will be working for the NGO, not the sorta person who would be donating money to the NGO. I do support and want human rights, but we will never have human rights without a fight and the battle is between "Us" and "Them." If you don't have a "Them" then you wont know who stands in the way of you having human rights, quality of life or anything else you want.

Of course you will have people who will say nobody is entitled to these things, but I do believe that people are entitled to a standard of living. Nobody is entitled to be CEO rich. Nobody is entitled to living in luxury, but everyone is entitled to the basics as far as I'm concerned. Since the elites have given me a world where I have to fight for the basics, it forces me to accept the "Us" vs "Them" mentality or else I might not even be able to get the basics.

The "Us" vs "Them" is a mentality that people develop when in harsh environments. Whether you are a soldier in Iraq/Vietnam, or if you are in prison, or if you are a corporate world worker who is afraid that you might lose your job, this mentality develops as a survival mechanism. You see animals hunt in packs, you see it in sheep when they stick together to avoid predators. What I'm describing is human nature and basic animal nature and we aren't going to overcome fight or flight, war, and "Us" vs "Them" until everyone has the basics without having to fight for it. When you can live your life without having to fight for everything you have and then fight to keep whatever you earned, thats when we will be beyond "Us" vs "Them." But as long as there is someone who doesn't want you to have a good life, or who doesn't care whether you suffer or not, you will have to look out for yourself and focus on the people who are looking out for you. It doesn't matter if you are in a prison, in the jungles of the Congo, or working as a construction worker, there will always be people who will want to take away what you do have to benefit their self interest. You have your own self interest and if you have a wife, kids, a mother and father, a friend or two, whoever it is that you have is your quality of life. If you don't protect those who you have then you will be miserable.

So it becomes a situation of "Us" against "Them" because nobody wants to be miserable. Everyone wants to keep their family safe. Everyone wants to have some kind of income, security and happiness. Nobody gives anyone anything of value in this world, you have to fight for anything you get and fight to keep whatever you have. We live tooth and claw, and I'm fighting to change that culture but it's not going to change overnight or probably in my lifetime and so I'm forced to accept "Us" vs "Them" until there is an environment where I don't have to accept that to survive.

timetraveler added to this post, 14 minutes and 1 seconds later...

So the reason no one can understand your arguments is that our reading comprehension is low. Got it.

Could it possibly be that the arguments are poorly formed, not supported with significant rationale or evidence, and generally incoherent, and that's why no one can understand them?

I'll explain it with numbers, if A represents "Us" and B represents "Them", and if Q represents quality of life, and the concept of A and B are variables not constants. (You thought A was race).

The size of (A) is relative to the size of (B). As (B) grows the size of (A) shrinks. As the size of (A) shrinks the (Q)quality of life shrinks. So it's rational and logical to want to increase the size of (A) as much as possible. By helping strangers you can increase the size of your (A) which indirectly increases your (Q).

So I absolutely do believe in helping others because thats how you grow your "Us." If you map all of this out on a chart, every person you know in life on one big chart, and you determine who the "Us" is based on whether they love you or not, the people who love you will receive +1, while the people who have no feelings for you will remain 0, and the people who hate you will be -1. To increase your Q score in this chart you would want to have as many people love you as possible among the people you know.

Now this Q concept doesn't apply to everyone as I'm sure there are some people in this world who no one loves and who don't want to be loved by anyone. So we are for sake of argument only including people who desire to be loved, and who give love. Does my argument make better sense now that you can map it out with math? All of the other stuff about GDP, and growth of corporations , productivity etc have very little influence on peoples (Q) score.

Lets take Joe Smith for example, his "Us" includes his

1. Mother (+1)
2. Father (+1)
3. Grandmother (+1)
4 Grandfather (+1)
5. Brother(+1)
6. Sister(+1)
7. In Laws(+2)
8. Wife(+1)
9. Son(+1)
10. Daughter(+1)
11. Friend A(+1)
12. Friend B (+1)

The sum of A = 14
This is about 14 people that love him. So that is 14 Q. This is the amount of love he receives in his life, and these are the people who directly influence his quality of life. All the other people come and go, they don't last very long in his life. They might be neutrals who have their own Q scores to protect (-0). They might be enemies, people who want to lower his Q score, so they'd be represented with (-1).

I hope this helps you make sense of what I'm talking about. Map out your chart and determine your own Q score and then we can discuss this as a logic problem rather than as a political or emotional problem. It's logical and cultural not political or emotional. Trust and love are currencies and more important than $/capital. Your web of trust can be mapped, and your web of love can be mapped. Those who trust/love you are not equal in personal value to those who don't. Economists usually don't factor any of this into their calculations because they view humans as worker robots without emotions or feelings.

(if I did not use standard math terms, we can clean it up later but this is to illustrate the math)

Stickman

09-28-2009, 11:32 AM

Of course you will have people who will say nobody is entitled to these things, but I do believe that people are entitled to a standard of living. Nobody is entitled to be CEO rich. Nobody is entitled to living in luxury, but everyone is entitled to the basics as far as I'm concerned. Since the elites have given me a world where I have to fight for the basics, it forces me to accept the "Us" vs "Them" mentality or else I might not even be able to get the basics.

There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't give everyone a standard of living unconditionally. I know it sounds harsh so I'll explain why as succinctly as possible.

a) There's a finite sustainable carrying capacity of the world.
The world is big, but not infinite. There are plenty of scientific and biological evidence that point to the fact that the human population cannot grow unbounded (namely population dynamics and the second law of thermodynamics). Of course, this point alone doesn't show that we shouldn't give everyone a standard of living unconditionally, the second point will clinch it.

b) If everyone is promised a standard of living than the human population will grow unbounded at a geometric rate.
This is shown historically: see China and India. Malthus gets a bad rap because he didn't consider the growth of technology but his work is still highly relevant.

c) The natural conclusion of an overpopulated nation is genocide
See Rwanda. For communist examples see China and the USSR.

The "Us" vs "Them" is a mentality that people develop when in harsh environments. Whether you are a soldier in Iraq/Vietnam, or if you are in prison, or if you are a corporate world worker who is afraid that you might lose your job, this mentality develops as a survival mechanism. You see animals hunt in packs, you see it in sheep when they stick together to avoid predators. What I'm describing is human nature and basic animal nature and we aren't going to overcome fight or flight, war, and "Us" vs "Them" until everyone has the basics without having to fight for it. When you can live your life without having to fight for everything you have and then fight to keep whatever you earned, thats when we will be beyond "Us" vs "Them." But as long as there is someone who doesn't want you to have a good life, or who doesn't care whether you suffer or not, you will have to look out for yourself and focus on the people who are looking out for you. It doesn't matter if you are in a prison, in the jungles of the Congo, or working as a construction worker, there will always be people who will want to take away what you do have to benefit their self interest. You have your own self interest and if you have a wife, kids, a mother and father, a friend or two, whoever it is that you have is your quality of life. If you don't protect those who you have then you will be miserable.

So it becomes a situation of "Us" against "Them" because nobody wants to be miserable. Everyone wants to keep their family safe. Everyone wants to have some kind of income, security and happiness. Nobody gives anyone anything of value in this world, you have to fight for anything you get and fight to keep whatever you have. We live tooth and claw, and I'm fighting to change that culture but it's not going to change overnight or probably in my lifetime and so I'm forced to accept "Us" vs "Them" until there is an environment where I don't have to accept that to survive.

I've already shown that despite people mostly living and working for selfish reasons we still work together and cooperate (often with total strangers). I might hate my boss, but I do most of the things he tells me. The baristas at the coffee shop may or may not like me but they're practically my servants and get me whatever I ask for (within reason of course).

timetraveler

09-28-2009, 08:10 PM

There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't give everyone a standard of living unconditionally. I know it sounds harsh so I'll explain why as succinctly as possible.

a) There's a finite sustainable carrying capacity of the world.
The world is big, but not infinite. There are plenty of scientific and biological evidence that point to the fact that the human population cannot grow unbounded (namely population dynamics and the second law of thermodynamics). Of course, this point alone doesn't show that we shouldn't give everyone a standard of living unconditionally, the second point will clinch it.

This is what I said all along. This is why I said it's "Us" vs "Them." The difference is you are saying we "Shouldn't" and I'm saying we "Can't". I think we should if we could.

b) If everyone is promised a standard of living than the human population will grow unbounded at a geometric rate.
This is shown historically: see China and India. Malthus gets a bad rap because he didn't consider the growth of technology but his work is still highly relevant.

c) The natural conclusion of an overpopulated nation is genocide
See Rwanda. For communist examples see China and the USSR.

I don't agree with this conclusion at all. If people weren't living in harsh conditions they wouldn't have any reason to have so many children. If we allow people to have a standard quality of life in exchange for birth control wouldn't this be acceptable? A two child policy for places which are moderately populated and a one child policy for places which are over populated. The incentives should be given to people who don't have kids rather than to people who do, but I do believe we should strive for the highest possible quality of life for all. Thats what the goal should be.

I've already shown that despite people mostly living and working for selfish reasons we still work together and cooperate (often with total strangers). I might hate my boss, but I do most of the things he tells me. The baristas at the coffee shop may or may not like me but they're practically my servants and get me whatever I ask for (within reason of course).

Some people cooperate but most don't. If everybody in this country were willing to cooperate we wouldn't have so much poverty in the richest country in the world. Most people compete with their neighbor, and some even hate their neighbor. How often do you hear people badmouthing their neighbors, or blaming immigration from Mexico for all their problems, or blaming the "other." I'm making the prediction that this sort of behavior is going to become more common as the economy gets worse, and it's a prediction based on math and knowledge of social networks.

Stickman

09-28-2009, 09:56 PM

This is what I said all along. This is why I said it's "Us" vs "Them." The difference is you are saying we "Shouldn't" and I'm saying we "Can't". I think we should if we could.

Well, if I can be allowed to speak for myself I'm saying we shouldn't because although we can do it today we won't be able to keep on doing it tomorrow or the day after. More suffering will happen in the long run.

I don't agree with this conclusion at all. If people weren't living in harsh conditions they wouldn't have any reason to have so many children. If we allow people to have a standard quality of life in exchange for birth control wouldn't this be acceptable? A two child policy for places which are moderately populated and a one child policy for places which are over populated. The incentives should be given to people who don't have kids rather than to people who do, but I do believe we should strive for the highest possible quality of life for all. Thats what the goal should be.

I think it would rub people the wrong way if you paid them to not have children. There's a eugenics and welfare angle to the story that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Personally I'm against it, not because it wouldn't work but because it would be a political quagmire.

Besides there are plenty of studies that show that the number of babies a family will have largely depends on the education level of the mother, more then the wealth of the family. No one is against education and everyone is for women's rights and in the long-run it will even lead to more productivity and wages. Win-win-win situation.

Some people cooperate but most don't. If everybody in this country were willing to cooperate we wouldn't have so much poverty in the richest country in the world. Most people compete with their neighbor, and some even hate their neighbor. How often do you hear people badmouthing their neighbors, or blaming immigration from Mexico for all their problems, or blaming the "other." I'm making the prediction that this sort of behavior is going to become more common as the economy gets worse, and it's a prediction based on math and knowledge of social networks.

I suppose as people's economic situations become worse they turn to protectionism as the answer to their problems which would actually make things worse for everybody else. I think you're making a roundabout argument in favor of a social safety net but I can't be sure. Your writing has a particular quality about it that makes it hard for me to understand what exactly your point is.

Stickman added to this post, 26 minutes and 56 seconds later...

I don't agree with this conclusion at all.

Besides there are plenty of studies that show that the number of babies a family will have largely depends on the education level of the mother, more then the wealth of the family.

In case it's not entirely clear, this particular sentence defends point b). Wealth is only correlated with birth rates because education and wealth are also correlated. The relevant causal relationship is education -> less babies.

timetraveler

09-28-2009, 10:36 PM

Well, if I can be allowed to speak for myself I'm saying we shouldn't because although we can do it today we won't be able to keep on doing it tomorrow or the day after. More suffering will happen in the long run.

I agree that over population is a real problem. The discussion of over population naturally progresses into "Us" vs "Them."

I think it would rub people the wrong way if you paid them to not have children. There's a eugenics and welfare angle to the story that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Personally I'm against it, not because it wouldn't work but because it would be a political quagmire.

The right answer usually wont be the popular answer. We should pay people not to have kids rather than pay people to have kids. The incentives have to be shifted to support our priorities as a species.

Besides there are plenty of studies that show that the number of babies a family will have largely depends on the education level of the mother, more then the wealth of the family. No one is against education and everyone is for women's rights and in the long-run it will even lead to more productivity and wages. Win-win-win situation.

I think it's a matter of education and wealth. You can have a wealthy uneducated family but they will have no reason to have lots of kids. It would actually lower their quality of life in many cases to have kids. However if a person isn't wealthy then they wont be able to afford nurses to take care of them when they get old. There is a perverse incentive to have a lot of kids. I'm for education and womens rights, but if these people don't have quality of life along with it, it's not going to change their behavior. We need to at least offer quality of life, otherwise who wants to be miserable alone?

I suppose as people's economic situations become worse they turn to protectionism as the answer to their problems which would actually make things worse for everybody else. I think you're making a roundabout argument in favor of a social safety net but I can't be sure. Your writing has a particular quality about it that makes it hard for me to understand what exactly your point is.

I'm in favor of human rights, I'm in favor of a global safety net, I'm in favor of promoting cooperation over competition. I'm not in favor of communism, I'm in favor of reforming capitalism and creating capitalism 2.0. The new form of capitalism has to focus on quality of life, not growth. Quality should be more important than quantity, in all things.

If you look at the human body, if cells exist only to grow for the sake of growth, it becomes a cancer. It begins to kill off other cells and eventually the entire host dies. This is the problem we face under our current flawed system. I am examining the "Us" vs "Them" mindset because we are in a situation now where the economy is in a depression globally. This has a psychological effect on people and this tends to only make people more competitive.

I also bring this up because I think people who say "So you lost your job? Go back to school and be more competitive. So your kids failed in math and science? Too bad, we are going to extend the school day so they can compete with the global competition." It's this kind of language and these kinds of policies which increase competition and when you increase competition you unfortunately create "Us" vs "Them."

We are telling children they have to compete with other children overseas in Asia. We are always telling our children that they aren't competitive enough, they have to work harder. We are never satisfied and always demand more and we don't demand more for any reason other than Asia is doing it, or Europe is doing it, or some other child is doing it. This starts in elementary school and it continues all the way to college. By the time they graduate college they of course have an "Us" vs "Them" complex and a "Lets take on the world" attitude.

If you don't like "Us" vs "Them" then we need to feel more compassion for people who didn't think in "Us" vs "Them" and in response they lost their job or can't compete. If nobody is willing to feel any compassion for people who aren't naturally competitive, then even people who don't like the "Us" vs "Them" mindset will adopt it just to survive in this environment. People who have enough so as to be immune to this aren't seeing the psychological damage that is being done. And it's unrealistic to expect children to be motivated to be competitive with every other child in the world yet not have an "Us" vs "Them" complex. If someone is in the Olympics we expect them to have this kind of complex but somehow we don't expect to see this complex in other successful people? If you are trying to be the best in the world at something you will become competitive and this competitive attitude will lead to an "Us" and a "Them" over time. So that is the psychology of it.

If I'm difficult to understand, just watch the Olympics and tell me if you understand the mindset of the kids and adults who are winning medals. And if someone wants you to be more competitive, ask them at what cost.

Stickman

09-28-2009, 11:26 PM

The right answer usually wont be the popular answer. We should pay people not to have kids rather than pay people to have kids. The incentives have to be shifted to support our priorities as a species.

Well, as someone with an economics degree I can't say that incentives won't work since I've been brainwashed to always think otherwise but I can say that there are alternatives to this particular policy that I think are better. I agree we shouldn't pay people to have kids however.

I think it's a matter of education and wealth. You can have a wealthy uneducated family but they will have no reason to have lots of kids. It would actually lower their quality of life in many cases to have kids. However if a person isn't wealthy then they wont be able to afford nurses to take care of them when they get old. There is a perverse incentive to have a lot of kids. I'm for education and womens rights, but if these people don't have quality of life along with it, it's not going to change their behavior. We need to at least offer quality of life, otherwise who wants to be miserable alone?

Well, ok. Let's settle on "subsidized living scaled with the education level of the adults in the family through a negative income tax". If you're correct than there's no need to enforce a law restricting population because income and education is sufficiently high.

We are telling children they have to compete with other children overseas in Asia. We are always telling our children that they aren't competitive enough, they have to work harder. We are never satisfied and always demand more and we don't demand more for any reason other than Asia is doing it, or Europe is doing it, or some other child is doing it. This starts in elementary school and it continues all the way to college. By the time they graduate college they of course have an "Us" vs "Them" complex and a "Lets take on the world" attitude.

There are a lot of problems in the world and every year people expect a rise in their living standards. If every other kid is working harder than why are we rewarding them less than yours? In a meritocracy we should reward hard work, and talent. I mean, if you don't want to work harder than you don't have to but you have to accept the consequences (ie. a lower standard of living). This doesn't mean you have to live in poverty (unless you're really lazy), just that you'll enjoy less luxuries.

Your writing was clearer this time around FYI, although a little verbose. I'm a little critical over writing, both of myself and others so please don't be offended.

timetraveler

09-29-2009, 12:11 AM

Well, as someone with an economics degree I can't say that incentives won't work since I've been brainwashed to always think otherwise but I can say that there are alternatives to this particular policy that I think are better. I agree we shouldn't pay people to have kids however.

We can try this but we should always keep the option open to directly provide incentives if this is proven via statistics to not be working. Scientific method should be applied to solve these problems.

Well, ok. Let's settle on "subsidized living scaled with the education level of the adults in the family through a negative income tax". If you're correct than there's no need to enforce a law restricting population because income and education is sufficiently high.

I agree with the negative income tax. And I think education should be free for anyone who wants it, I don't know how they expect people to be educated if nobody can afford it.

There are a lot of problems in the world and every year people expect a rise in their living standards. If every other kid is working harder than why are we rewarding them less than yours? In a meritocracy we should reward hard work, and talent. I mean, if you don't want to work harder than you don't have to but you have to accept the consequences (ie. a lower standard of living). This doesn't mean you have to live in poverty (unless you're really lazy), just that you'll enjoy less luxuries.

You cannot have a meritocracy under capitalism because not all are born in equal positions in society. Meritocracy is one of those unrealistic ideals that we must either reform our measurements or give up completely. Hard work isn't as important in my opinion as smart work.
The best workers don't have to work "hard" anymore because we don't have factory jobs and farmers anymore. This is 2009 where the ideal worker is a creative intellectual, an innovator, someone who can get a lot done in the least amount of time. The smart worker is better than the hard worker. The creative worker is better than the guy who just works long hours doing the same thing day in and day out. We need innovation.

Right now our society is still organized around training people to be factory workers and farmers. We have to reorganize our priorities before we can even make sense of a meritocracy. Children aren't being trained to innovate, or start businesses, or solve tough problems. We are teaching children to behave, to obey, to get good grades and getting good grades does not provide any indication of leadership ability, because the way we measure progress in students is in a way which does not really predict who the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates will be.

We can have school all year round, we can have a longer school day, but the way we measure progress has to change from being just a matter of looking at that students grade point average to looking at that students character and leadership qualities. We should teach students from middle school on how to start and run businesses rather than train students to be ordinary mediocre worker robots. If we want to create jobs for ourselves and raise our quality of life then we should be promoting that in school and teaching the skills needed for that rather than basing school around test scores, and rewarding the students who may not have any talent beyond getting good grades in school. It's just not going to be enough to get good grades.

Your writing was clearer this time around FYI, although a little verbose. I'm a little critical over writing, both of myself and others so please don't be offended.

I'm not offended. We are talking about complicated topics which aren't easy to express clearly in a post on a forum. We could write books about these topics and usually that is how people digest topics such as this. Us vs Them and population control are serious topics, and many of the sub topics such as social network analysis, game theory, psychology and history are also very complicated and difficult concepts. The concept of over population is complicated enough that not everyone agrees with your formula that we will out grow our natural resources.