An excellent column by Krugman. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general) Even if you find his stuff too liberal for you, try this one . . . it has some pivotal insight into our current politics that should be obvious enough for everyone to swallow.
The nut:
Quote"One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society's winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It's only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That's what lies behind the modern right's fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty."
This is why we shouldn't expect these overtures to bipartisanship actually have any staying power. We are deeply and legitimately divided over possibly THE core principle of governance: what is the role of our government in the modern era, and as he says in the article, we've gotten to the point where there's really no middle ground between the two ideologies.
Worse than that, if either side totally prevails, the system falls apart and anarchy ensues.
Quote from: we vs us on January 14, 2011, 09:10:51 AM
An excellent column by Krugman. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general) Even if you find his stuff too liberal for you, try this one . . . it has some pivotal insight into our current politics that should be obvious enough for everyone to swallow.
The nut:
This is why we shouldn't expect these overtures to bipartisanship actually have any staying power. We are deeply and legitimately divided over possibly THE core principle of governance: what is the role of our government in the modern era, and as he says in the article, we've gotten to the point where there's really no middle ground between the two ideologies.
What if you're not one of "societies winners"? What if you are just a guy or gal who worked twice as hard to get where you are?
When I get a commission check I didn't win it. I worked harder, innovated more, and pushed myself for the purpose of earning more money. When I receive a royalty, it is because something I developed has provided value to someone else.
This is always my problem with Krugman and his ilk. They have this twisted view of success as being like some giant roulette wheel with success being won and failure as a perpetual state of being.
It is hard to find middle ground when people operate from divergent lexicons. In order to work together we need to be able to agree on terminology that is truthful. This has been the failure in the debate between liberal and conservative views forever and I don't think there is a solution.
At the heart of the liberal/progressive movement is the requirement of assigning the individual to a group and then treating them according to the attributes and values associated with that group, rather than evaluating people on an individual basis. These groups are then pitted in opposition to each other with government in the middle. This parental view of government is not only dysfunctional but corrosive to production. It demonizes success, glorifies failure, and deitizes politicians.
The reason I posted this wasn't so much to get into a lib/con ideological pissing match so much as to point out that the two ideologies have no common ground at this point. There's nowhere in the middle to meet. I think taxes and a solid welfare safety net are important and what's more, a moral imperative; you think that's essentially larceny and a corruption of the state -- also, coincidentally, a moral stance. There's nowhere for us to compromise.
What's crucial, too, about the article is that this is relatively new. For most of the 20th century (1930's through 1990's) there was a welfare state consensus . . . there could be discussions of levels of care, spending, and efficiencies, but both parties agreed upon what "the common good" tended to meet. Now the two polarities are waaaaay off on what this core principle actually means.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 14, 2011, 11:21:33 AM
What if you're not one of "societies winners"? What if you are just a guy or gal who worked twice as hard to get where you are?
When I get a commission check I didn't win it. I worked harder, innovated more, and pushed myself for the purpose of earning more money. When I receive a royalty, it is because something I developed has provided value to someone else.
What you won was being in a position to earn that commission check. You won it by mere accident of birth. You won it by not being run over by a drunk when you were a kid and losing the use of your arms. You won it when you didn't end up with messed up brain chemistry resulting in a nearly impossible to shake depression.
Without your hard work, you would not have been likely to capitalize on that luck, but without that luck, no amount of hard work would have saved you.
You make the mistake of thinking that everyone less fortunate than you is in that position due to laziness and not for some other reason. Some people less fortunate than you are indeed there through nothing more than their unwillingness to work to achieve something, but some work harder than you and still manage to make almost nothing.
You think it's my housekeeper's fault that the economy is in the toilet, thus leaving her with few clients these days? I guaran-damn-tee you she works harder than any of us between her self-employment and a couple of part time jobs cleaning offices. After all, we find the time to post here. Yet she's the one who can't make ends meet.
I think letting people starve is more immoral than being taxed to feed the hungry. Some disagree, but it's a fundamental disagreement.
Either way, this is further illustration of Krugman's exact point; there is fundamental disagreement on the nature of success in our society and the role of government to help curb capitalism's seedy underbelly.
Quote from: nathanm on January 14, 2011, 11:58:27 AM
What you won was being in a position to earn that commission check. You won it by mere accident of birth. You won it by not being run over by a drunk when you were a kid and losing the use of your arms. You won it when you didn't end up with messed up brain chemistry resulting in a nearly impossible to shake depression.
Without your hard work, you would not have been likely to capitalize on that luck, but without that luck, no amount of hard work would have saved you.
You make the mistake of thinking that everyone less fortunate than you is in that position due to laziness and not for some other reason. Some people less fortunate than you are indeed there through nothing more than their unwillingness to work to achieve something, but some work harder than you and still manage to make almost nothing.
You think it's my housekeeper's fault that the economy is in the toilet, thus leaving her with few clients these days? I guaran-damn-tee you she works harder than any of us between her self-employment and a couple of part time jobs cleaning offices. After all, we find the time to post here. Yet she's the one who can't make ends meet.
I think letting people starve is more immoral than being taxed to feed the hungry. Some disagree, but it's a fundamental disagreement.
Either way, this is further illustration of Krugman's exact point; there is fundamental disagreement on the nature of success in our society and the role of government to help curb capitalism's seedy underbelly.
Don't forget wrongfully sued for what you get your royalties on by a larger corporation trying to drag you through court and run you out of business.
Nathan, being born under the right sign doesn't guarantee the opportunity at having a great job vs. a crappy one. It also takes education, initiative, attitude, and a proven track record of work ethic to secure the opportunity in the first place. There's little, if any, luck involved. Where I work now, part of the reason I have the job is because it's owned and run by old family friends. However, they made overtures to me for at least ten years before I went to work for them because they knew I was a highly successful salesman. If I couldn't sell and didn't have the track record to prove it, I would have been of no use to them if all I could do was come in and make coffee every day.
The liberal view makes the assumption that conservatives don't want to pay ANY taxes. That's absolutely incorrect. Myself and others I know don't have a problem paying taxes. What we do have a problem with is a bloated government which wastes billions upon billions of dollars not all on social welfare, but bullshit regulations, creating one un-needed bureaucracy after another, and thinking money is the solution for every single problem so they keep on printing more. I think most people share my view that I'm really reticent to hand over more money to the government when they are doing an incredibly piss poor job handing the money they have now. It's not my fault the government is so far in debt. The government has stuck it's nose into far too many things it has no business in, it thinks it has to be the world's police force, and the first to open it's wallet when catastrophe faces another nation.
I don't see how that is a selfish or greedy view. People simply don't get too jazzed about their productivity being confiscated to pay for a mis-managed government.
QuoteWhat you won was being in a position to earn that commission check. You won it by mere accident of birth. You won it by not being run over by a drunk when you were a kid and losing the use of your arms. You won it when you didn't end up with messed up brain chemistry resulting in a nearly impossible to shake depression.
Yeah! I survived. Good for me. I have no problem providing aid and assistance for people with disabilities. That represents a very small fraction of the moocher class in this country.
QuoteWithout your hard work, you would not have been likely to capitalize on that luck, but without that luck, no amount of hard work would have saved you.
I feel blessed every day.
QuoteYou make the mistake of thinking that everyone less fortunate than you is in that position due to laziness and not for some other reason. Some people less fortunate than you are indeed there through nothing more than their unwillingness to work to achieve something, but some work harder than you and still manage to make almost nothing
No, I do not. You are attempting to classify everyone who makes less money as somehow disabled or "less fortunate", when most are simply less driven, and socialized into believing that success is only a dream. I know many who work harder than I do, and they typically are not the ones complaining.
QuoteYou think it's my housekeeper's fault that the economy is in the toilet, thus leaving her with few clients these days? I guaran-damn-tee you she works harder than any of us between her self-employment and a couple of part time jobs cleaning offices. After all, we find the time to post here. Yet she's the one who can't make ends meet.
Nor is it my fault that the economy is here. The very practice of granting largess to those who can't afford it is how we got here. We are simmering in our own soup.
QuoteI think letting people starve is more immoral than being taxed to feed the hungry. Some disagree, but it's a fundamental disagreement.
No one is interested in allowing anyone to starve. Funding poverty only begets more poverty. Poverty must be uncomfortable in order to make achievement attractive. Subsidize only those things that you wish to grow. The war on poverty has converted it from a temporary misfortune into a career choice.
QuoteEither way, this is further illustration of Krugman's exact point; there is fundamental disagreement on the nature of success in our society and the role of government to help curb capitalism's seedy underbelly.
You are correct, government does have a role in enforcing the law, but the seedy practices you allude to have very little to do with capitalism. If the goal is to ensure doors are open to everyone, I'm all for it, but if the goal is to limit freedom, because freedom represents risk, then the argument must continue.
Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer
Nate:
I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!! And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.
Quote from: guido911 on January 14, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
Nate:
I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!! And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.
You aren't fortunate, you are lucky.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 14, 2011, 04:12:34 PM
You aren't fortunate, you are lucky.
You're right. I stand corrected.
I understand some people need help.
That being said...I'd like it if we could make it a rule that anyone receiving money from the government as living assistance was unable to purchase anything with a sin tax.
I'm sure we've gone over this before but I just don't think it makes sense to help pay for someone's tobacco products/alcohol/etc.
Quote from: Townsend on January 14, 2011, 04:31:03 PM
I understand some people need help.
That being said...I'd like it if we could make it a rule that anyone receiving money from the government as living assistance was unable to purchase anything with a sin tax.
I'm sure we've gone over this before but I just don't think it makes sense to help pay for someone's tobacco products/alcohol/etc.
Sounds awfully mean-spirited and possibly conservative. :D
Quote from: guido911 on January 14, 2011, 04:38:40 PM
Sounds awfully mean-spirited and possibly conservative. :D
I have many conservative opinions. This one just seems like a no-brainer.
Edited to add that some of the stuff you post is wild-assed crazy to me so I post opinions on those as well.
Quote from: guido911 on January 14, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
Nate:
I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!! And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.
You, sir, are the naturally-occurring proof of Krugman's theorem. Congrats!
Quote from: we vs us on January 14, 2011, 05:01:20 PM
You, sir, are the naturally-occurring proof of Krugman's theorem. Congrats!
Why? Because I find it damned insulting when someone suggests that my success, and even more so my wife's success given she sacrificed even more, was a result of being fortunate. Folks like you who are apparently content with doing the very least to get by and letting those that really did achieve cover everything are not "less fortunate". They are, in the words of Boortz, part of the "moocher class".
As for Krugman, I'll let democrat pollster Pat Caddell provide my thoughts on this scumbag opportunist.
Quote from: guido911 on January 14, 2011, 05:15:10 PM
Why? Because I find it damned insulting when someone suggests that my success, and even more so my wife's success given she sacrificed even more, was a result of being fortunate. Folks like you who are apparently content with doing the very least to get by and letting those that really did achieve cover everything are not "less fortunate". They are, in the words of Boortz, part of the "moocher class".
As for Krugman, I'll let democrat pollster Pat Caddell provide my thoughts on this scumbag opportunist.
Did you even read the article? Do you have any idea what you're arguing about?
Quote from: we vs us on January 14, 2011, 05:23:09 PM
Did you even read the article? Do you have any idea what you're arguing about?
Yes I did read it. Have you. Here's his screed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?src=me&ref=general
Now you tell me, how else should I respond to a hacky and snobbish commentary tying economic policy disputes to violence. Of course, it's only the GOP's position that leads to violence or threats. After all, it was members of the GOP and tea party types that were violently protesting the G20. Just look at these repubs:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJxCKXig7NqBFJtm8O42ZPFjS1QdT4jqWDnspE0beTtYFHOdi8iw)
Also, I find it extremely condescending to be lectured by Krugman that my desire to retain as much as I can of what I earn is somehow immoral. Conan's right. It's not that I don't want to pay my fair share. Believe me, right now this "society winner" (what a bullsh!t description of those that achieve) pays what I consider more than my fair share despite the thousands I give to those "less fortunate" or "society losers". How about you?
Quote from: guido911 on January 14, 2011, 05:15:10 PM
Why? Because I find it damned insulting when someone suggests that my success
Why would you find it insulting to acknowledge that your success is, in some small part, due to luck and the society that provides a framework for you to make money?
Quote from: nathanm on January 14, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
Why would you find it insulting to acknowledge that your success is, in some small part, due to luck and the society that provides a framework for you to make money?
First, our society provides
everybody a "framework" to succeed, not just me. The fact that I took advantage of this framework and the "less fortunate" or "society losers" did not should not be grounds to insult me by calling me as "society winner" or "fortunate" or "lucky".
As for my success being tied to "luck", please elaborate. Because if you read what I posted as to how I got to where I am, I fail to see anything "lucky" about it. Well, I take that back. I guess while I commuted between Joplin and Tulsa (4 hours a day on the road) for those four years I was lucky a semi driver cranked out did run me over. And by the way, I was so lucky to lose all that time from my wife and kids that I will never get back while I made that drive so I could provide for my family.
You were lucky to be born here, that was the first bit. If you weren't born here, you were lucky to be born to parents who had the foresight to bring you here. If you weren't brought here as a child, you were lucky to win the immigration lottery.
So yeah, from your first breath you have been one of the lucky and privileged few, just as each and every one of us who lives in the US is.
You seem to think that being lucky means you can sit back and do nothing and let the dough roll in. I have never said that. I have never belittled your hard work and sacrifice. You seem to think that luck is like a lazy Christian's conception of prayer. It's not winning the lottery, it's finding yourself in a situation where hard work and sacrifice will actually get you somewhere. For some people, that's just not the case.
Again, I don't see the insult. Maybe you can explain it to me more slowly and in smaller words.
Time out for great quote from Winston Churchill that might have some relevance here. " The curse of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of the wealth, the blessings of Socialism are the equal sharing of the misery." Kind of sums it up.
If you'd read the article you'd see that the point isn't another "my ideology trumps yours." He's saying that the way you conceive of economic justice and the way I conceive of economic justice are now entirely opposed, and that there is effectively no place for us to compromise. You think my idea of the government is essentially stealing your money and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Which is immoral. I think your idea of hard work vs luck is straight out of the Gilded Age and ignores nearly a century of hard-learned lessons about how economics works. Which is immoral.
THAT'S the point. Not that you're wrong and I'm right, but that we've come to a point where the two poles of our country don't have any common ground for governance.
I remember reading somewhere that birds actually don't see or hear many other species. They operate at different wave lengths of sound and at different speeds of vision. They can't communicate with many other types of birds because they simply cannot hear them. It is assumed that it keeps them from cross breeding. They don't really see humans or hear us because we are so slow moving in comparison. They fly away because they sense some movement but we must look like some sort of ghost to them.
Maybe we're not so different. However, birds aren't so egotistical as to believe that the wavelength they operate in is superior to that of other birds.
Quote from: waterboy on January 15, 2011, 08:46:25 AM
I remember reading somewhere that birds actually don't see or hear many other species. They operate at different wave lengths of sound and at different speeds of vision. They can't communicate with many other types of birds because they simply cannot hear them. It is assumed that it keeps them from cross breeding. They don't really see humans or hear us because we are so slow moving in comparison. They fly away because they sense some movement but we must look like some sort of ghost to them.
Maybe we're not so different. However, birds aren't so egotistical as to believe that the wavelength they operate in is superior to that of other birds.
You know, his secondary point (as I took it) was also important . . . that for decades, Democrats and Republicans both had decided at core that a mixed economy with a strong safety net was an unalloyed good thing. There were definite disagreements over how much to spend, where to put it, etc, but there was a consensus that social welfare was a crucial element of a modern state.
The Tea Partiers and the newer Republicans (like Gaspar and Guido) question the validity of the welfare state altogether and that's both new and kind of hobbles our political discussions.
Quote from: waterboy on January 15, 2011, 08:46:25 AM
However, birds aren't so egotistical as to believe that the wavelength they operate in is superior to that of other birds.
How do you know that?
Dr. Doolittle syndrome?
Because they aren't aware of the other birds and they have tiny little brains that don't have room for ego!
Perhaps the Great Horned Owl looks with disdain upon the other little creatures around him but likely he just looks at them as food.
Quote from: we vs us on January 15, 2011, 09:25:11 AM
You know, his secondary point (as I took it) was also important . . . that for decades, Democrats and Republicans both had decided at core that a mixed economy with a strong safety net was an unalloyed good thing. There were definite disagreements over how much to spend, where to put it, etc, but there was a consensus that social welfare was a crucial element of a modern state.
The Tea Partiers and the newer Republicans (like Gaspar and Guido) question the validity of the welfare state altogether and that's both new and kind of hobbles our political discussions.
No amount of leadership alone bridges that chasm. I'm afraid it is the economic realities that force changes in the view points. For instance, the industrialization of the mid to late 1800's produced the gilded age and the perceptions of reality that Guido and Gas revere. There was no difference between the goals of government and the goals of business as they were one and the same. There was no "hand up" offered to the widows, children and immigrants living on the street by government as they were considered to be products of their own lack of ambition or lack of willpower. Immigrants basically replaced the low cost labor lost after the Civil War. Bluntly, there was no profit in a welfare oriented viewpoint.
The consensus up to now was forged in the aftermath of a globally disastrous WWI, a charismatic President (TR, who changed the view of what government could do), the failure of banking and another charismatic President (FDR). The populace had a taste of widespread prosperity from the 20's and no longer would tolerate watching the elderly, infirm and lower classes be abused for profit. We adjusted capitalism to new realities.
Seems odd to me that as we repeat the cycle with the advent of a new digital revolution, that has led to the same circumstances as the mid to late 19th century, anyone would expect different results in the political arena. It is uncanny how the immigration issues, corporate domination of government, ecological issues and a (economic) digital revolution have all lined up exactly as before. This alignment of elements actually led to changes in government systems and economic systems globally at that time in Europe and Asia.
But we're smarter now. Aren't we? We'll make adjustments to these disparate views or we'll not prosper. Which will lead to a failure to effectively react to crises. And that will change the chasm into a consensus.
Quote from: waterboy on January 15, 2011, 08:46:25 AM
I remember reading somewhere that birds actually don't see or hear many other species. They operate at different wave lengths of sound and at different speeds of vision. They can't communicate with many other types of birds because they simply cannot hear them. It is assumed that it keeps them from cross breeding. They don't really see humans or hear us because we are so slow moving in comparison. They fly away because they sense some movement but we must look like some sort of ghost to them.
I checked out bird vision and believe you have a misunderstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision
I was a bit off with the vision as far as motion, (I don't regularly check Wiki, instead relying on a more sophisticated but perhaps less reliable search engine, my cerebrum) but this site said nothing about their auditory abilities-
"Birds can resolve rapid movements better than humans, for whom flickering at a rate greater than 50 Hz appears as continuous movement. Humans cannot therefore distinguish individual flashes of a fluorescent light bulb oscillating at 60Hz, but Budgerigars and chickens have flicker thresholds of more than 100 Hz. A Cooper's Hawk can pursue agile prey through woodland and avoid branches and other objects at high speed; to humans such a chase would appear as a blur.[5]
Birds can also detect slow moving objects. The movement of the sun and the constellations across the sky is imperceptible to humans, but detected by birds. The ability to detect these movements allows migrating birds to properly orient themselves"
Nonetheless, I remain confidant that most birds may perceive of the slower motion of a human but have no idea what that motion represents other than possible food, mating or danger. They also have little ability to communicate outside of their own type which is the basis of my analogy. IIRC, they cannot distinguish the meaning of another type of birds' call or sometimes even hear it at all.
Which was an analogy meant to highlight the main feature of the discussion. Danged engineer. ::)
Quote from: waterboy on January 15, 2011, 01:09:47 PM
I was a bit off with the vision as far as motion, (I don't regularly check Wiki, instead relying on a more sophisticated but perhaps less reliable search engine, my cerebrum) but this site said nothing about their auditory abilities-
Nonetheless, I remain confidant that most birds may perceive of the slower motion of a human but have no idea what that motion represents other than possible food, mating or danger. They also have little ability to communicate outside of their own type which is the basis of my analogy. IIRC, they cannot distinguish the meaning of another type of birds' call or sometimes even hear it at all.
Which was an analogy meant to highlight the main feature of the discussion. Danged engineer. ::)
I haven't read the whole article yet but the "Function" section indicates that birds have pretty good hearing and can hear other species too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vocalization
The "slower motion of a human" is not that we move slower but that birds see it as a series of still shots like we might see something at just a few frames per second. I believe an equivalent for us would be to see movement in a stroboscope lit room. (Think disco, as painful as it may be.) The motion isn't smooth, it is a series of new positions. I don't know how that is evaluated by the bird's brain. If I described a motion to you of a human raising his/her arm above the shoulder and then moving the hand laterally back and forth, how would you interpret it? It could be waving hello or goodbye. It could be someone trying to get a taxi. It could be someone trying to get the attention of a group leader (elementary school kid needing to use the restroom). Our species has a habit of misinterpreting motions and configurations of the body even within ourselves, especially across cultures. The raised fist of the black movement in the 60s symbolized togetherness among blacks. Whites interpreted it as a symbol of aggression.
I would agree that interpretation of the meaning of movements and sounds can be wrong or missing. I believe that seeing or hearing them is not the issue in most cases as birds seem to have more versatile sensors than humans.
Danged Engineer
(It's just the way I am.)
Quote from: nathanm on January 14, 2011, 09:29:32 PM
You were lucky to be born here, that was the first bit. If you weren't born here, you were lucky to be born to parents who had the foresight to bring you here. If you weren't brought here as a child, you were lucky to win the immigration lottery.
So yeah, from your first breath you have been one of the lucky and privileged few, just as each and every one of us who lives in the US is.
You seem to think that being lucky means you can sit back and do nothing and let the dough roll in. I have never said that. I have never belittled your hard work and sacrifice. You seem to think that luck is like a lazy Christian's conception of prayer. It's not winning the lottery, it's finding yourself in a situation where hard work and sacrifice will actually get you somewhere. For some people, that's just not the case.
Again, I don't see the insult. Maybe you can explain it to me more slowly and in smaller words.
By your thinking everyone that managed to survive birth in this country is "lucky". As such, the playing field is equal for all, the "fortunate" and "less fortunate". So now what's your point about "luck". Oh, and I consider surviving birth as a blessing from God and not luck.
??
The latest reference for the Wiki article was 1998. That was 13 years ago. Pretty sure I read or heard this discussion at least within the last decade. Wiki isn't the most reliable anyway. Nonetheless, couldn't find any reference to auditory or "function" on the link you provided. Do you think birds of different species communicate with each other through sound? If so, I saw nothing to indicate that yet. I will never resort to getting Wiki'd up before I make comments on a forum about what I admittedly noted I had read or heard somewhere. But that wasn't the point anyway.
I wouldn't for anything change your engineer's outlook on life. However, you're being a literalist and I was speaking in terms....not at all literal. I know we're not birds. Or maybe you're just screwing with me and I have no sense of humor. Wevus made the good points. I simply saw parallels between animal behavior and human behavior and wanted to use it in a way to add dimension to an interesting hypothesis.
Let's not beat this dead horse anymore. Unless....did anyone ever really beat dead horses? Did they actually beat them or did they kick them? Does it really matter since the horse is already dead? Is beating a dead horse acceptable in Oklahoma? I better hit Wiki quick... :)
Guido: The country that you were born in limits abortion and encourages family growth through tax deductions. A country whose citizens subsidized the education that provided the doctors who contributed to the foundation that built the hospital where you were born. Taxpayers who provided incentives through their government to encourage the development of affordable housing through tax deductions and the GI bill after WWII. A country whose philanthropists and taxpayers provided money to build parks, libraries, public pools, gymnasiums and municipal buildings that you benefited from growing up. Scholarships were provided by the State, the Federal Government and non-profits to make sure your education was good and not dependent upon the wealth and status of your parents. Roads built by taxpayers, repaired by taxpayers, maintained by taxpayers so that you could drive your cheap car or metro bus, on cheap gas which was subsidized by government through depletion allowances, on roads paved by lowly paid workers whose bodies long ago gave out on them so you could get to school on time and learn the fundamentals of life from tax paid teachers, who often provided supplies from their own income, in a safe environment watched over by tax paid police officers who moonlighted doing security work to keep their households intact since the taxpayers didn't care to adequately fund either of them. Your parents. Your co-workers. Your employers. The migrant farm workers who picked your food. The meat workers who worked in Omaha for practically nothing because they were illegal and were at the mercy of others. The labor unions who fought for dental care which eventually became part of your corporate package of health benefits. They all wonder why you deny them now.
Your country invested both citizen monies in research and development of technologies that provide jobs for people who never paid a dime in taxes, both rich and poor. Your country gave you a job at OUR expense in the National Guard so you could pay us back sometime. We felt it a good investment as our tax dollars are useless if we can't defend ourselves.
I could go on, especially enumerating how your color, your sex and your sexual preference gave you even more advantage, but its clear you don't consider it "lucky" for you to have been born in a country that provided all this for you. Instead, you seem to think you and your wife did it all on your own.
Quote from: waterboy on January 15, 2011, 03:36:40 PM
The country that you were born in limits abortion and encourages family growth through tax deductions. A country whose citizens subsidized the education that provided the doctors who contributed to the foundation that built the hospital where you were born. Taxpayers who provided incentives through their government to encourage the development of affordable housing through tax deductions and the GI bill after WWII. A country whose philanthropists and taxpayers provided money to build parks, libraries, public pools, gymnasiums and municipal buildings that you benefited from growing up. Scholarships were provided by the State, the Federal Government and non-profits to make sure your education was good and not dependent upon the wealth and status of your parents. Roads built by taxpayers, repaired by taxpayers, maintained by taxpayers so that you could drive your cheap car or metro bus, on cheap gas which was subsidized by government through depletion allowances, on roads paved by lowly paid workers whose bodies long ago gave out on them so you could get to school on time and learn the fundamentals of life from tax paid teachers, who often provided supplies from their own income, in a safe environment watched over by tax paid police officers who moonlighted doing security work to keep their households intact since the taxpayers didn't care to adequately fund either of them. Your parents. Your co-workers. Your employers. The migrant farm workers who picked your food. The meat workers who worked in Omaha for practically nothing because they were illegal and were at the mercy of others. The labor unions who fought for dental care which eventually became part of your corporate package of health benefits. They all wonder why you deny them now.
Your country invested both citizen monies in research and development of technologies that provide jobs for people who never paid a dime in taxes, both rich and poor. Your country gave you a job at OUR expense in the National Guard so you could pay us back sometime. We felt it a good investment as our tax dollars are useless if we can't defend ourselves.
I could go on, but its clear you don't consider it "lucky" for you to have been born in a country that provided all this for you. Instead, you seem to think you and your wife did it all on your own.
You forgot the justice I help get to victims of injustice and the untold numbers of lives my wife has saved. It's called living in a society. As for military service, I guess it was an oversight that you left out the part about protecting the likes of you from foreign aggression at the risk of losing my life. Jeez, you and Nate make it seem like my wife and I do not contribute to this country.
Just as I said above, EVERYONE in this country receives everything you discussed. Hence, by your definition, everyone is "lucky". What distinguishes those that achieve from those that don't on your same playing field is commitment--not luck.
I am getting very bored with having to apparently feel that my wife and I's achievements are not a result of hard work and sacrifice but rather because I was born here. It's like if we were born in Japan or some other country we wouldn't have succeeded. What a galling and insulting supposition based entirely on speculation.
Quote from: guido911 on January 15, 2011, 03:52:30 PM
You forgot the justice I help get to victims of injustice and the untold numbers of lives my wife has saved. It's called living in a society. As for military service, I guess it was an oversight that you left out the part about protecting the likes of you from foreign aggression at the risk of losing my life. Jeez, you and Nate make it seem like my wife and I do not contribute to this country.
Just as I said above, EVERYONE in this country receives everything you discussed. Hence, by your definition, everyone is "lucky". What distinguishes those that achieve from those that don't on your same playing field is commitment--not luck.
I am getting very bored with having to apparently feel that my wife and I's achievements are not a result of hard work and sacrifice but rather because I was born here. It's like if we were born in Japan or some other country we wouldn't have succeeded. What a galling and insulting supposition based entirely on speculation.
Be assured, your responses are just as boring and just as insulting to those of us who paid your way and who find it incredible that you think we are without commitment because we didn't follow your path to riches and glory.
Do you realize you just slammed most of your fellow posters regardless of their education, intelligence or position in life simply because they did not decide to be a professional, a college grad, a masters owner or to aggressively pursue wealth? Its as though you don't even read these posts or understand them. I gave you credit for serving and protecting the public but you didn't even see it. I learned a long time ago that education and job have nothing to do with being smart or making money. The dumbest guys I ever knew were great socializers who cruised through their youth, made tons of money and spent it on drugs and women. The smartest ones with the most insights to real life are poorly paid, well educated, social workers.
NOT everyone in this country receives all that I listed. They are available under the correct circumstances to everyone. Those circumstances might include, among a long list of others; as long as you're born in the right area, to the right parents, in the correct religion,without an identifiable unpopular heritage, with the correct sexual identification, get into the right schools, are not ignored or molested as a child, are not traumatized by any number of tragedies around you, are fed correctly, are a blue eyed, blond haired male, are a large male or one who learns to cope with being one armed, short, bullied, red headed or fat. Yes, you're a hard working committed lawyer who has some ability to make a payback, we're proud of you. But you were not only lucky, we provided much of that luck and you want all the credit.
^^^^
The only people I am slamming in this forum are those who insist that "luck" had anything to do with my or anyone else's success. Period. And another thing, who anointed you with right to speak in such a speculative way for anyone in this forum? Maybe you are a mind reader.
One more thing, if you believe I joined the National Guard, after serving active duty for numerous years, because I was out to make a buck off the backs of the taxpayer, you are disgustingly naive.
Finally, in your last sentence you apparently are taking credit for my "luck". Please tell me exactly what you have done to provide me my luck. After all, I have only been in this area for about ten years and I do not even recall meeting you. And for me taking all the credit? I owe my opportunities to the grace of God and hard work. I give you zero credit.
Quote from: guido911 on January 15, 2011, 02:59:28 PM
By your thinking everyone that managed to survive birth in this country is "lucky". As such, the playing field is equal for all, the "fortunate" and "less fortunate". So now what's your point about "luck". Oh, and I consider surviving birth as a blessing from God and not luck.
Here, as opposed to Nigeria, genius. And you have one of the worst reading comprehension problems I have ever seen in my life. You continue to insist that I and others have said things we have not said, and in fact took great care to specifically state we were not saying.
Quote from: nathanm on January 15, 2011, 11:27:20 PM
Here, as opposed to Nigeria, genius. And you have one of the worst reading comprehension problems I have ever seen in my life. You continue to insist that I and others have said things we have not said, and in fact took great care to specifically state we were not saying.
No use me repeating what you have succinctly stated. ^
Does anyone remember the poster that went something like this: "Success is what happens when luck and preparedness meet"?
Quote from: guido911 on January 15, 2011, 03:52:30 PM
As for military service, I guess it was an oversight that you left out the part about protecting the likes of you from foreign aggression at the risk of losing my life.
I've got to ask, exactly what foreign aggression did you protect all of us lesser folks from? The last time that there was a foreign aggressor that the military was able to defend against was WWII. Fighting political conflicts, or being present in a location as a political ploy does not count as defedning against a foreign aggressor. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate service people, because they do exist to protect this country, they just do not choose what battles they get to fight. That being said, it gets really old how you try to brow beat everyone in here with the fact that you served. That does not make you better than everyone. I know this is off thread, but I just had to say something about it because all you do is make me start to resent those that serve because they might act like you about it.
Quote from: guido911 on January 15, 2011, 05:15:39 PM
The only people I am slamming in this forum are those who insist that "luck" had anything to do with my or anyone else's success. Period.
I think that hard work is by far the main reason for your (and my) success in life. You paid your dues, stayed in school, and took risks. That makes success achievable.
But luck has something to do with it. A very little something, but still something. In my case, I avoided some of the problems and bad luck that my some of my friends had. I was lucky enough to meet the right woman at the right time. I was lucky to have healthy children.
Good luck and bad luck happen every day in our lives. It mostly goes unnoticed but has some tiny effect for our successes or failures. Especially if matched with hard work.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2011, 12:49:22 PM
I think that hard work is by far the main reason for your (and my) success in life. You paid your dues, stayed in school, and took risks. That makes success achievable.
But luck has something to do with it. A very little something, but still something. In my case, I avoided some of the problems and bad luck that my some of my friends had. I was lucky enough to meet the right woman at the right time. I was lucky to have healthy children.
Good luck and bad luck happen every day in our lives. It mostly goes unnoticed but has some tiny effect for our successes or failures. Especially if matched with hard work.
Of course some can work hard and still get held back because of chance (luck emplies that some ritual or act can change it, at least to me). But those that get ahead by chance alone are about equal to the number of those who chance keeps them down no matter how hard they work to get ahead. By and large it is a mixture of hard work, and being in the right place at the right time. Otherwise your just spinning your wheels without traction.