Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2012, 05:46 PM   #16
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
I believe the charge of envy is just about 100% bullshit. Most of us making a decent living who are sticking up for those not getting a fair shake are doing so simply for goodness sake, and not because we can't be happy with what we have.
Exactly. This is just a talking point.

That latest Frank Luntz-generated talking point is that Republicans aren't to even use the word "Capitalism." It has an 18% approval rating. Now, the Republicans are supposed to talk about "economic liberty."

01-12-2012, 06:27 PM   #17
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Now, the Republicans are supposed to talk about "economic liberty."
That's pretty funny considering the fact that with so much power in the hands of so few, a large percentage of the population can never exercise that liberty.
01-12-2012, 08:04 PM   #18
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
That's pretty funny considering the fact that with so much power in the hands of so few, a large percentage of the population can never exercise that liberty.
Yeah, Romney will just "liberate" you from your job.
01-12-2012, 08:15 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
i believe the charge of envy is just about 100% bullshit. Most of us making a decent living who are sticking up for those not getting a fair shake are doing so simply for goodness sake, and not because we can't be happy with what we have.
+1


.

01-13-2012, 01:11 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
"Let them eat cake" -

How little the attitude of the privileged towards the rest have changed in the last 200 years.

Romney's great fear is that ordinary people will start judging capitalism on moral grounds which capitalism will always lose being intrinsically an amoral system.
01-13-2012, 09:07 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
Frankly, I think the plutocrats and theocrats are trying to set up some narrative *for* open class warfare, as a pretext to keep and consolidate the wealth and power they have.

I think that may even be part of why they seem bent on dismantling any 'blue states' they can get a 'Bagger elected in.
01-13-2012, 11:20 AM   #22
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
"Let them eat cake" -

How little the attitude of the privileged towards the rest have changed in the last 200 years.
I agree, though I’d say 5000 years (and if we accept Veblan’s analysis, we’d have to go back to tribal life of prehistoric times). Human social struggles are almost always about power. Power is an abstract term for the means to access and use resources. In barbaric times, resource access was often acquired through military excursions. As humanity grew, the spoils of war were controlled by the military class, and those who were uniquely useful (or convincing they were useful) to the military class. In India and Israel, for instance, the priestly class convinced military leaders they were essential to success.

As trade grew, the market became another area of resource access; a skilled trader could accumulate a great store of resources. Money was invented to stand in for resources, and consequently military and trading successes resulted in large accumulations of money (resource credit), which in turn made the most successful participants more powerful (more control over resources).

Control of resources (which includes armies) gives the ability to control those who need resources. Such control always involves a relative few in control of the vastly more populous masses. The controlling class begins to dream up myths to justify their roles, and with so much power, there was little the masses could do to challenge myths like divine right and other self-glorifying concepts.

To understand the implications of this dynamic, to it must be added the susceptibility of humans to succumb to greed, overindulgence, and becoming self-absorbed. Just as a child can be spoiled rotten if not led toward a constructive, learning, self-developing and giving life, so too does it seem that power unusually tempts adults to turn toward the dark side.


QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
Romney's great fear is that ordinary people will start judging capitalism on moral grounds which capitalism will always lose being intrinsically an amoral system.
Continuing my little story to include capitalism, I’d disagree with you that capitalism per se is an amoral system. Rather, capitalism is especially effective at accumulating power, which provides that temptation for humans to turn toward greed, overindulgence, and becoming self-absorbed. It also, as usual, creates a relatively small class of people with extraordinary control, who then dream up myths (e.g., job creators) to justify their unfair use of power to benefit just a few.

In my opinion, there is only one cure for the perversion of power, whether that’s military or market power. Society must instill in its members the virtue of using power for the good of humanity. A powerful capitalist effort (i.e., one that results in large accumulation of resources) is not amoral if those resources are used for the good of society, say to build the finest schools, improve infrastructure, make sure everyone has basic needs met, etc. Yes, if too large a portion of the accumulated resources only goes to a few people, then others will not have access to resources they need to live a decent life (or live at all in some cases). But that isn't because of a fault with capitalism; if we get rid of capitalism the same traits that spoil capitalism will show up in the new system.

So, if my analysis is reasonably on target, we don’t want to kick out such an effective means to accumulate resources/wealth as capitalism. What we really need is a proper distribution of those resource accumulations into people and into socially benefitting services (along with developing the social ethics that encourages it).

In today’s news are two articles which illustrate both confusion and clarity about this in the US. First the confusion from ABC news in the article "Capitalism on Trial in GOP Presidential Fight":

QuoteQuote:
The merits of capitalism are normally reserved for debate in classrooms, or for economists to ponder at think tanks and the Federal Reserve. But for the past week, the hallmark American system of free enterprise has been thrust into the court of public opinion by the most unlikely group – Republicans running for president and scrutinizing Mitt Romney’s tenure at the private-equity firm Bain Capital.
Republicans, by their very nature, are supposed to like capitalism.

Yet these candidates — namely Newt Gingrich but also the back-runner Rick Perry — charge that on Romney’s watch, Bain profited while some companies in which he invested went bankrupt and workers lost jobs. The problem with their criticism is, for the most part, that’s one of the ways capitalism is designed to work.

The prosecution has lobbed plenty of insults at Romney — “crony capitalism,” “backdoor socialism,” “vultures” — in an effort to drag him down from his front-runner status. They portray him as a ruthless tycoon who casually dishes out pink slips before speeding away in a Maserati.
But go too far, and they run the risk of abandoning the capitalist roots that conservatives (and plenty of liberals) say make America great. That’s caused the accusers to back off a bit from their charge.
In the above commentary, the author doesn't identify the culprit properly when he says capitalism is on trial rather than identifying greed and power abuse as the problem. But in the editorial below, we get a little clarity from Michael Lind in his article "What Kind of Capitalist is Romney?" when he draws a distinction between "stakeholder" and "shareholder" capitalism:

QuoteQuote:
Beyond the concerns about the loss of American jobs to off-shoring or automation and the food-fight tactics of Romney's rivals is a legitimate question about what kind of capitalism 21st century Americans should want.

The choice is between "stakeholder capitalism" and "shareholder capitalism." According to the theory of stakeholder capitalism, corporations are and should be quasi-public entities with responsibilities to the nation-state and to the communities in which they are embedded. The corporation should make a profit and provide a fair return to investors. At the same time, workers who contribute their labor to the company have a legitimate interest in it as well as investors who provide capital. Managers serve the company and the country, not merely the investors.

In the theory of "shareholder capitalism," the corporation exists solely for the purpose of the investors, whom the managers serve as agents. In shareholder capitalism, short-term profits are the only goal, and if that means laying off workers instead of retraining them or reassigning them, breaking up the company and selling the assets to enrich private equity partners and shareholders, so be it.



Last edited by les3547; 01-13-2012 at 01:20 PM.
01-13-2012, 11:36 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
nitpick: amoral = being neither moral nor immoral, lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply (Amoral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) (?)
01-13-2012, 11:48 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
Newt Has Rush and Rudy Fuming | Crooks and Liars

QuoteQuote:
To say it's got Rudy Guiliani and Rush Limbaugh's knickers in a twist would be an understatement. Rudy was just about out of his body Thursday morning on Fox and Friends, calling Newt a student of Saul Alinsky and equating his actions to "something Barack Obama would do." There's an insult.
01-13-2012, 12:02 PM   #25
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by jolepp Quote
nitpick: amoral = being neither moral nor immoral, lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply (Amoral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) (?)
Of course all "systems" are amoral in the sense you state; only people have morals. In relation to people, the normal usage of amoral is "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong," it is a negative term. I interpreted his words ". . . judging capitalism on moral grounds which capitalism will always lose being intrinsically an amoral system" to mean the negative human-applied variety since he said capitalism will "lose," and it seems there would be no "losing" if he were applying the morally-neutral definition.

Last edited by les3547; 01-13-2012 at 03:21 PM.
01-14-2012, 09:46 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
Of course all "systems" are amoral in the sense you state; only people have morals. In relation to people, the normal usage of amoral is "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong," it is a negative term. I interpreted his words ". . . judging capitalism on moral grounds which capitalism will always lose being intrinsically an amoral system" to mean the negative human-applied variety since he said capitalism will "lose," and it seems there would be no "losing" if he were applying the morally-neutral definition.

Actually, capitalism alone is both amoral and, somewhat as you described, about accumulating *capital,* ... and on those grounds, capitalism indeed does not show itself as a paragon of morality, no matter how it's portrayed: it's just a tool and a system, (and one that needs to be controlled/balanced to some extent, or else it simply consumes everything around, and then inevitably, itself.) Claiming (Unfettered) Capitalism=Inherently Moral (Or Divine, in Romney's case) Superiority is a very false statement, and it 'loses' when claiming it *as* some acme of morality.

Think of it like a machine: say, a pumping system: you can use it to keep water circulating and making sure it gets to all the people and places it needs to be, or it could be used to drain all that water to a private reservoir or something. It has to be kept in balance, in part by *not* treating it as some innate moral good, the less regulated the better: it's not a goodness if the capital itself is concentrated in too few hands or treated as an authority unto itself, (Even secondhand through the Religious Right's claims that this wealth stratification is 'God's Invisible Hand' or something/that only 'sinful envy' prevents people from accepting the myth that what's good for the 1 percent alone is somehow the highest good)

One way to keep capitalism somewhat balanced is to have some of the capital (and real wealth like property and capacity) in *other* systems, (This has to do with why social programs and the like actually help to keep people (and money) moving *in and out* of that finance system, instead of making increasingly destitute/depression-and-worse downward cycles.)

Part of the reason people are dissatisfied is because we've lost many of our checks on the greed and concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few ultra-rich: the unions being all but busted,reducing the value of labor, the social programs being strained, the cost of medical care and energy getting more and more out of the means of the people who actually need it, the corporate/Religious Right buyout of even what's supposed to be a government that represents the *people,* dismantling of even our towns and manufacturing for another quarter of corporate profits, etc. These are all signs of a machine out of control: 'unfettered capitalism' being inherently, even *far from moral,* no matter how much they try and call it their 'God's Will.'

To make good things with capitalism, (Like, say, an economy we can all participate in and improve our lives, hopefully sustainably, while actually getting around to some of the good things civilization is *for,* like what we can build together besides what's incidental to some big numbers on a shareholder's account) .... the tool actually has to be *used* rather than letting the tool use *us.* It's also not the 'One True Tool' at our disposal. It works better when used for what it's *good for.*
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
country, envy, people, percent, president, questions, romney
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The K5 is quiet, very quiet compared to my Kx! VoiceOfReason Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 12 01-11-2012 04:04 PM
Complete n00b Requests Advice rbryant Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 18 04-23-2011 08:44 AM
Generational Inequality In Japan and the USA mikemike General Talk 74 02-04-2011 01:09 PM
Washington DC's income inequality mikemike General Talk 33 11-10-2010 03:27 PM
QUIET, so QUIET!!! K-5 was delivered today!! luke0622 Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 8 10-18-2010 08:59 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:20 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top