Since our entire country has been on this Randian-Libertarian-Nihilist streak for the recent past and foreseeable future, I have a question about something that has been bothering me: why do these Objectivist-Superman-Job Creator types oppose inheritance taxes? In fact, why do they believe in inheritance of assets at all? I mean, if every man should have to make it in the world on his own mettle without outside interference, then the children of the rich should have to hack it without a financial booster seat.
Furthermore, since they're so qualified to succeed in life of their own accord, they should have no need for dad's and granddad's millions.
buy advair generic buy advair online over the counter
I may be a simpleton, but it would appear to me that once you accept a system of hereditary wealth the whole "level playing field" thing goes out the window. Maybe I just need to get out my picture of Milton Friedman and pray harder.
middle seaman says:
You totally miss the point. The Randian-Libertarian-Nihilist system is for "them," the poor, hungry and the stupid. It's not for the rich. The rich believe in socialism for the rich, in taking advantage, in rape and pillage.
The Mad Dreamer says:
They've never pretended they wanted anything close to a level playing field. That would be socialism, and therefore bad.
Daniel says:
The response you would get from the loonies would basically be, "Yeah, but still." There is no argument. Operation Shutdown is basically a giant, "Well, we gotta stick it to Obama somehow. We have no answers. We hope the country falls apart." Sad, but obviously true.
Carrstone says:
So, in your world, competition only takes place between equals, a contradiction in terms, don't you think? Ludicrous to think that only those with the same birthday, sex, hair color, size of whatever may be competitors.
As usual, your piece says more about your envy than about the issue. You assume that only your 'types' resent the government's hand in their wallet; if you went out more, you'd realize that ain't so – I resent it, too, and I'm no millionaire.
My advice to you to get out more is well-meant, you might see what really motivates people and how that motivation slots into the evolutionary drive to survive and care for one's progeny.
By all means let's have a debate about level playing fields: do they foster or inhibit growth? I think you'll find that most people will want a level field (except for them, of course – just read the comments to this piece); they'll want that not because they'll be able to perform better but because they think they'll get their hands on some of what the other guy's got at no cost.
Arslan says:
Carrstone clearly demonstrates the typical American retardation that is the result of decades of propaganda from the schools, media, and lately talk radio/cable news with his idiotic insinuations about "envy."
The main reason why "ordinary" people resent the government's "hand in their wallet" is because a massive noise machine has convinced them that this is the reason for their declining living standards, as if that $40-70 bucks the government takes from their paychecks would allow them to start businesses and buy houses. The real reason for declining standards of living is stagnant wages. Put simply, since the 1970's employers have been stealing more of the value their workers produce than they did in the past. Sure, the worker gets dinged by the government to pay for things he or she does not want, but his or her employer has already stolen a massive amount of the value they produced, plus their time.
Carrstone also demonstrates the typical child-like logic of the conservative with this gem:
"So, in your world, competition only takes place between equals, a contradiction in terms, don't you think? Ludicrous to think that only those with the same birthday, sex, hair color, size of whatever may be competitors."
Yup, that's EXACTLY what Ed was advocating. Unless competitors have the EXACT same attributes it must be unfair. You busted him!
Tim says:
I think this is one of the cases where Randian/Objectivist dogma conflicts with the Libertarian. Randians might be all for the Galt's, and if pressed they may concede that inheritance can create concentrated power/elites that can be as or more stifling than any theoretically tyrannical government.
The Libertarian just shrugs it off by saying that it is wrong to try to control how someone spends money. They simply don't care if some child is given enormous amounts of money, where Randians presume some level of value created by the individual who acculumates these benefits.
So in this case, Libertarians are actually more cheerleaders for the status-quo and elites than Randians.
Xynzee says:
@Carrstone: what not waiting until the comments are effectively closed for once?
Are you seriously that stupid, or do you practice?
This is a take down of the philosophy of her Randiness, her acolytes and the numerous plotholes in her books. Most of which is predicated on *her* assumptions that everyone is equal, as you put it same hair color, weight, birthday, etc. All of which proves your ignorance of even your idol, as your list is superficial at best. But then that proves the point of a randroid — as well as the farcical nature of Rand's "philosophy". I noticed that you avoided the deeper attributes such as: ability, intelligence, wisdom, emotional maturity… you know real attributes.
Let's see… Olympics: everyone in the 100m final is at least capable of running 10.0 or better yes?
So how often do we see a 100m final with Usain Bolt and someone with Lou Gehrig's?
Therefore, yes! Yes, in our world competition does occur between equals. Apparently in your universe you strap boxing gloves onto complete invalids tied to a pole and let them do 10 rounds with Tyson. Then think that was a terrific match.
Envy? Really? That's your best? Gee, not sure what you call it, but I don't think envy is the word for what I've got. I've got me some awesome job protections, decent remuneration, great work place, boss and interesting enjoyable work. Australia affords me a decent place to live, decent healthcare and dozens of other intangibles. Now I'd like others to have some of what I've got. So go find a new word.
Again it appears that in Randville, Darwinism is de jour. It goes to follow that if people's basic needs are unmet, then scratching, clawing and cannibalism are what happens. Which means "envy" is everywhere. Yes, I'd like a Porsche, but I'm happy with what I've got.
"they'll want that not because they'll be able to perform better but because they think they'll get their hands on some of what the other guy's got at no cost."
Ah, yes the childish assumption that those without are "lazy". Onya! Carrstone for not disappointing on that one. How could a randroid not say those on the down and out are "lazy". I've worked to get where I've gotten to. However, along the way I've had many people help me out. I was *fortunate* enough to have an opportunity that allowed me to come to Aus. When my career hit gravel, because I now live in a country that made education affordable, I was able to retrain. I didn't *make* those. They happened to/for me. I — along with others — also paid into these programs with *my/our* taxes, and now through *my* taxes I'm making it so that there's a ladder there for others to climb.
So unlike you Carrstone, I'm not pulling up the ladder after myself *despite* the fact that others helped make it possible for you to get where you are today. Was it you — or just another of your ilk — a few months back saying people should go to "affordable" state schools rather than expensive private schools? Talk about cognitive dissonance. The state school was affordable *because* of taxes, the taxes that you so hate to pay and are trying to get out of paying so badly.
Once again, Randville seems like such a happy place to live. If that's what you mean by getting out more, I'll pass thank you. In fact Somalia sounds like a better place for a vacation. At least radical Islam offers some kind of positive social structure by comparison to Randian flavoured Darwinism.
Anonymouse says:
Ah, yes, the "death tax"…the thing the easily-duped were frothing about several rounds of outrage ago. According to them back then, everyone had several million dollars of inheritance coming to them, but the ebbil gummit ™ was going to leave them destitute 'cuz Soshulizm.
Major Kong says:
I don't begrudge people their millions, even if a lot of them just chose their parents wisely.
I just don't want to get downsized so they can trade their Gulfstream IV in on a Gulfstream V.
Tom says:
Who'd'a thought investing in a family would keep that family wealthy—both socially (far more important) and financially.
Do you accept that you're nothing more than a biological machine?
Yes: System of hereditary wealth is obviously the most natural.
No: Learn some psychology/neuro/biology.
sarf says:
Simple – it is your Rand-given right to do what you want with *your* money.
However:
The awesome-and-sparkle-pony-equipped (assuredly not Government-given) progeny, should of course reject the attempt at crushing them making it Their Way and rush out into the world, making it their oyster, while the Elder grumble about the young ones these days.
Don't worry – in our Randian dream-world (or direct-to-dvd version), our estranged males (and it is going to be two males, don't kid yourself) will reunite and declaim (showing real emotion is definitely not necessary) that they have Learned Valuable Lessons, and start oppressing the Real Takers (that's you, the Unthankful Employee) together using their accumulated wealth (*of course* the progeny is going to be successful!). The End.
c u n d gulag says:
Why would a true Randian or Libertarian ever even have a child?
Children are hungry, thirsty, poopy, peeing, mewling, crying, shrieking, demanding little "takers."
You have to clothe and educate them – aka: raise them.
And even if you outsource the raising of your child, you still have to pay for that.
There's really no ROI in having a child.
At least with a spouse, you can make arrangements or negotiate for sex, so at least you get something out of that marriage deal.
Not so with a child.
No sex ROI with a child.
A spouse might even bring in some income.
A child is basically a money-hole.
A child isn't a socialist.
A child isn't even a Communist.
A child is a Totalitarian Dictator who controls the parents lives, for 16-22+ years.
AND, they're on your Randian company health care plan, until they turn 26, "mooching" off your company!
No true Randian or Libertarian, would ever have a child.
Because if they do have a child, then they're willing to share, and to give unconditionally.
And no true Randian or Libertarian would ever be caught sharing or giving unconditionally.
If you have a child, you can no longer call yourself a Randian or Libertarian.
I rest my case.
geoff says:
Thank you, CU. I'm happy and proud to relate that my kid had to read Rand's "We The Living" for her Russian history class and was appalled. I think her words were (roughly), "wow, she really hates everybody!"
Also, don't forget to face Chicago (the Mecca of Randonomics) when praying to Saint Friedman.
J. Dryden says:
Because money.
Always, always, regardless of logical consistency or basic decency:
Because money.
grendelkhan says:
If you're serious about the question, Aaron Swartz asked it, and the arguments against an inheritance tax boil mainly down to "it infringes on your freedom to do what you want with your property", "it reduces incentives to work hard if you can't pass wealth to offspring" and "there are practical problems if you can give money to your children while alive, but if you die before you do, the state takes all of it".
Graham says:
Oh wow Ed, you're singing about number three in my songbook.
I always pose this question but generally not to Randians, because I don't want exploded brain all over my smug Socialist face.
Good points again, CUND Gulag. I just wish I knew what your moniker meant….
ZakPhilly says:
I often pose that question to my rightwing friends and never get much of an answer.
I think what we're dealing with is a philosophy that takes the principle of utilitarianism ("the greatest good for the greatest number") and turns it on its head. I call it "me-tilitarianism" ("the greatest good for the fewest number").
Carrstone says:
Well, which slavering ideologue to deal with first?
@xynzee
As I said before, your pieces say more about you than about their subject and this last diatribe says it in spades. You may think you were writing a take-down of Randian philosophy (how boring is that?) but what I read was a piece about the resentment you feel for those who 'come after'. I read that you would, by force of law, take some (why not all, while you're about it?) of that wealth away from them to give to … whom? And you presume that the recipients (and that includes the state) will not be tempted to be like the children of the rich, who, of course, would never spend it wisely. Dream on.
Competition does not occur between equals – that's exactly the point; it's purpose is to find a winner and a winner is as like the losers as all the animals are equals with only the pigs a little more equal.
@Arslan
You may be right, Arslan, 'envy' may not be quite right, I should have said 'resentment' where the former expresses 'hate that he has what he has' and the latter is the 'same hate augmented by the fact that it doesn't belong to me, instead'.
But enough about Ed on whose coattails you so happily travel (can't get going on your own, can you; need a little group solidarity, do you?). I just wanted to point out to you that not everybody wants to start a business or buy a house so your blanket assertion is wet.
I guess you're right about the power of propaganda, though; starting, I guess, with Clinton, the propaganda that everyone should own a house is a major factor in the current recession, particularly as the proletariat doesn't have the nous to know their ARM from their elbow thus confirming that you can fool most of the people most of the time. All this incredulous overreaching is punishable by economic hardship on all sides. Frankly, it's of some satisfaction to me to see how effectively the market system works with employers paying what the market will bear and not what the employee thinks he's worth.
I think you may have missed my point on competition, though. If, as you say, competitors must have the exact same attributes, there cannot, by definition, be a winner. Competition's role is to determine a winner from among competitors who share some but not all traits – it's idiotic to suggest, as Ed does, that I'd 'strap boxing gloves onto complete invalids tied to a pole and let them do 10 rounds with Tyson.' We know who's going to win, where's the fun in that?
Kathy K. says:
What I find really interesting is how it often seems that the second generation wealthy are much more 'this is mine, get your own' than their parents ever were.
Benny Lava says:
Speaking of which, remember when the randroids were predicting that so many "job creators" would go Galt in 2009? Remember their "double dip" recession predictions? Yeah whatever happened to that?
The best part about smartphones is that when you ask this of a conservative, and they try to deny this ever happened, you can google it in about 10 seconds and humiliate them. I love it so.
c u n d gulag says:
Graham,
When I first came to comment in the world of Liberal blogs, it was during the run-up to "W's Folly" in Iraq.
Remember back then when everyone who didn't gustily sing "Amen" along with the rest of W's chorus guys and gals, was accused of being a treasonous traitor – who should be locked-up?
Many relatives from both my mothers and fathers sides of my family died in Stalin's GULag's.
So, I used to end my long liberal word-turd rants with, "I'll see you the GULag. I'll try to save you the lower bunk."
And then, I decided to make that my moniker instead – "c u n d gulag."
As in "see you in the gulag."
deep says:
Carrstone said:
I bow down to your great intellect Carrstone, clearly only a diseased brilliant mind could produce a sentence like that.
Dave Dell says:
My understanding/reading of of the federal inheritance/gift tax system is that goes back to the early twentieth century. Some progressive states had an inheritance tax and some (Florida) did not. Shortly before death someone would move to Florida and escape the taxes. The federal government leveled the playing field by imposing a federal inheritance tax giving a credit against it for inheritance taxes paid to states. Sadly, it didn't work. Here in Nebraska for instance you may be subject to inheritance taxes at the state and local level while not having any federal liability.
Inheritance taxes at the federal level do not raise much in the way of revenue. The biggest impact is in charitable and foundation giving from the estate to exempt that amount from taxation. It's difficult to say just how much donations of this sort will change if the estate tax is eliminated.
GunstarGreen says:
@Carrstone, RE: "Frankly, it's of some satisfaction to me to see how effectively the market system works with employers paying what the market will bear and not what the employee thinks he's worth."
Actually, it's more like the employers pay the employees what they can get away with, because there is always someone just a little bit more desperate and closer to utter ruin who will take the job for less money because being drastically underpaid is better than not being paid when you have collectors breathing down your neck. Thus 'wage slavery'.
The facts do not lie. Look at any chart of employee compensation since the 70s, broken down by class — the working class stagnates, actually drops in some years, while the executive class increases at a geometric rate. So lopsided that it almost likes like a graph of an asymptote approach. Take the same time period, and chart productivity — unsurprisingly it's a steady increase.
The conclusion is clear and obvious. The workers have been getting more and more productive over the years, their time producing more and more valuable results, and where does all that value go? Straight into the executive trough. Thus is the 'trickle down' of Saint Reagan's economics revealed: the only thing that trickles down is the warm, putrescent piss of the wealthy overlord class. The money stops at the first bin.
Freeportguy says:
When conservatives talk about "personal responsibility" and "pulling the bootstraps", they're only setting the standard for OTHERS.
When they call any social program "entitlement" or accuse a Democrat of "pinning Americans against one another", they are PROJECTING.
Carrstone says:
@deep
You're missing a comma after intellect!
Graham says:
Thanks CUND Gulag – with the Surveillance State undoubtedly monitoring the ratbags on this blog, I may well see you in the gulag.
Carrstone says:
@GunstarGreen
So, workers more productive, hey? What did they do, grow an extra arm or a third eye? The magic comes from technology with the dual benefit of (1) making the worker's life easier and (2) making him redundant.
And did they pay for the technological growth? Did they, shit!
And that smell of piss? Must be coming off your shoes from when you wet the wall in the alley beside the bar last Friday.
doug says:
Carrstone, hurling invectives only weaken your argument, which was not much to start with….
GunstarGreen says:
Yes, yes they did pay for that technological growth, because it was only made possible by their labor in the first place. If you take a company, staff it entirely with "entrepreneurial types" and leave out the base labor, what do you get? You get a bunch of pretty ideas and well-dressed suits that don't actually make anything.
And on top of that, it is also the case that the workers are the consumers. People buy products with the money they get paid from their jobs, and this is an economic reality that a lot of folks don't seem to grasp. The more you screw your workers out of their wages, the less they can buy, which ultimately reduces your own revenue.
There is a reason that Ford, way back when, held to the standard that his employees should be able to afford to purchase the vehicles they were making for him.
But, this is clearly a waste of time. With your closing comments, you basically admitted that you've got nothing. Just another "FREE MARKETZ" fetishist that doesn't actually know anything about economics and has nothing but personal attacks when confronted with the mathematical realities of the situation.
Xynzee says:
@Carrstone:
"I think you may have missed my point on competition, though. If, as you say, competitors must have the exact same attributes, there cannot, by definition, be a winner. Competition's role is to determine a winner from among competitors who share some but not all traits – it's idiotic to suggest, as Ed does, that I'd 'strap boxing gloves onto complete invalids tied to a pole and let them do 10 rounds with Tyson.' We know who's going to win, where's the fun in that?"
Actually you missed the point. Randian/Libertarian beliefs lump the able bodied and the invalid into the same pool. Throw them in together, shake the can and see who eats who. Well obviously it was the invalid's fault for not winning because they *chose* not to be born with a functional body.
Yup, Darwinism at its best.
Or should that be worst, as the basic premise of Darwinism is that things are evolving upwards. Even funnel-webs display more concern for their own than randroids. Which more or less explains Texas. Every where on Earth is aspiring towards paved roads. Except Texas, because to ask the precious "job creators" to pay for the roads their heavy equipment is destroying might cause them hurt feelings. So instead of joining the "Great March Forward" they're choosing to head back to the marshes.
"All animals are equal". Personally, I'm a human being. Which gives myself an intrinsic and inherent value that raises me and my fellow humans above other animals. But if you're going to compare yourself to an animal, please don't pick on pigs. They are a truly noble animal.
As for you and your ilk… maybe take time to watch them, you might learn something about care and compassion. Then you might be fit to join the animal kingdom.
charluckles says:
I can't tell you how many times I have asked this question only to be told that conservatives believe in equal opportunity and liberals believe in equal outcomes. As if you could have equal opportunity when one citizen will never have to work a day in his life and the other is lucky if his single parent can put food on the table that night. Its just another ideological myth.
I do think it opens a massive can of worms about our society in general and the myths that many of hold dear. I work in a field with a lot of folks whose parents, while not multi-millionares, did pretty darn well and were able to afford private schooling, tutors, house keepers etc. Whats been absolutely astonishing to me is that when I suggest that to these people that they had priveledged up bringings they see it as a tremendous insult. For them, the billionaires son down the street had a priveledged up bringing, they themselves have earned every bit they have solely by their own hard work and temerity. You would get a better response just punching them in the face then you would if you suggested that our society does not have equality of opportunity and that they have been the beneficiary of that inequality.
Tex says:
I say Fuck The Children.
Case in point: 15% of all burn victims in the state of Missouri (the meth king state) are meth cooks and nearby children. In fact, the average of a meth fire victim is under 4 years of age. Why aren't these children acting more responsibly, display enlightened self-interest and critical thinking skills, rather than playing around dangerous household chemicals?
fastEddie says:
Let's look for the logical fallacies in one comment.
1) "So, in your world, competition only takes place between equals, a contradiction in terms, don't you think? Ludicrous to think that only those with the same birthday, sex, hair color, size of whatever may be competitors".
STRAWMAN – You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
2) "As usual, your piece says more about your envy than about the issue. … only your 'types' resent the government's hand …. if you went out more, you'd realize that ain't so
AD-HOMINEM – You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
I could probably go on, but why???? Your fallacy filled argument doesn't even mention Rand or Libertarianism.
The point of discussion is questioning why Objectivist Superman Randites oppose inheritance taxes. If their Children are so super ( and why wouldn't they be? ) then there would be no reason to have to provide for them.
How about this – "Conservatism" starting with Burke, is just that – to conserve and preserve the status of the elite. It doesn't conserve anything else or create anything. It has always been so. All the rest is a smoke screen.
The Randian bullshit is just an excuse to why they "deserve" to be elites. Only THEY have the special genius to be "makers" instead of "takers". What they don't say is that the "special genius" in this case is nothing but Capital ( also known as $$$$$ ).
Bernard says:
the Right never gets that it takes LABOR to make the "product" that makes the Rich aka Romney, Gates, Buffett rich.
To the Rich we are just consumers, not humans. the PR game has worked so well so far. yet, without the "idiot" citizens buying the "product" of the Job Creators, the Rich would never get Rich as said in the thread, the Rich would still have wonderful "Ideas" and no MONEY!!. Ford figured this out, as stated above, by paying his "worker Bees" enough money so they could make and buy his product/make Ford rich. and today we see what lack of "demand" does, without money to buy, the product sits on the shelf. lol. a self fulfilling cycle. without money to buy, nothing gets sold.
it is so funny and still sadly instructive to see how the Rich can't see where "their" money comes from. the MONEY they are getting, with Government help no less, comes from the Customer. and that is what is so amazing about the Rich today. the collapse of society will affect the Rich one day. just not as quickly as it does the rest of us. but most Rich believe what Thatcher said, "there is no such thing as Society." The Rich feel immune to the evil they perpetrate on the rest of us.
the Rich have no clue how to sustain wealth other than the present "way." The Rich think "poorer" people can afford to buy things without "MONEY" like magic ponies and unicorns, the Rich are living in a fairy land of their own making.
all the fancy words and angry threats can't change reality. we this all around us today
Fascinating real life "study" since "Reagan," just shows how to destroy society, with the help of "EVIL" Government. this is the supreme irony. lol. cause here we see how the Rich have used that "EVIL" Government to almost completely destroy "capitalism", as FDR warned. with Government doing the .01%'s work of making the 99% poor, the Rich can't get more willing sheep to be led to the slaughter. kill too many sheep and who will the Rich find to take to Slaughter? the Sheep/R's are dying off too quickly today. too many "others" who don't buy the BS of the Republican party.
once they kill the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, aka dumb white folks/Republicans, the ability to create more wealth dies too. The Rich are very close to ending the Capitalist Game. aka Monopoly. the Shutdown, Debt Limit, Sequetration. the Rich will have ended the game of Capitalism's present run. now, aint that ironic.
as we see today, you can only bleed the host so much. "you kill the host" after taking too much blood. the Rich today show they are just a greedy and stupidly blind Parasite that will eventually starve not only the host/the poor/ to death, but kill themselves as well.
to think Ayn Rand was on Welfare too. talk about blind hypocritical self hatred. to think Alan Greespan was her acolyte, obviously didn't learn much.
Stephen says:
Yeah, that's a pretty big open question for Randian mythology. Because going Galt + bestowing inheritance = a fast track to feudalism. Only worse, because there's not even a sense of noblesse oblige.
Big Sister says:
Can we please distinguish Darwinism from Social Darwinism?
Just because Darwin coined the phrase "Survival of the Fittest," in no way implies that he believed the life forms CURRENTLY understood as the fittest would be the life forms that will survive into the future. Evolution is recognized after the fact; you do not know what lies ahead. That is because, as the environment changes, life forms that currently seem kind if puny and meek might be better able to adapt and reproduce AND SURVIVE. I think Charles Darwin would laugh at the way his phrase is being used in these discussions today. We really have no way to understand who among us is really "the fittest," because we do not know how the environment will change and we do not know what skills those changes will favor.
Besides, Darwin was talking about survival of a SPECIES, not survival of a social arrangement, I e a society.
It was Edward Spenser (or is it Spencer?), who perverted Darwin's phrase to mean that the rich and strong will necessarily inherit the earth. It is naively based on the assumption that money or pedigree, as defined in 19th England, define Evolutionary Fitness. But money and pedigree are both social constructs and may have very little to do with survival at the biological level.
Maybe it's all those poor people out there whose access to birth control is being curtailed that will guarantee survival of the species. Maybe it's the dumb oxen who never read a blog or argue the finer points of logic that will save the species. We cannot know that.
guttedleafsfan says:
Randroids spend inordinate amounts of time speculating "how liberals think". (Of course, they all think exactly alike, whereas Randians are individual critical thinkers who always rationally arrive at exactly the same conclusions).
Although some of us libs are pathetically blind to our own cognitive processes, we are driven solely by envy/resentment of the Good and nihilistic glee when the Good is evilly defeated.
Also, we are all "Shrill" and "Hysterical", even the guys who sing bass in the church choir.
Carrstone says:
@Big Sister
It was, of course, Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase, nothing perverted about it unless you mean that it doesn't really do justice to 'natural selection'; not an Edward anywhere.
Ron says:
I think this essay is pertinent to the topic at hand, and link to it for those who might have missed it: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/05/my_father_the_objectivist/
GunstarGreen says:
The real proof of the Randian pudding is easily furnished by real-world examples: How quickly a hardcore objectivist/libertarian is to change their tune when their precious market fucks them over and the welfare nanny state starts to look might handy indeed. One need look no further than Rand herself, of course: it's well known how she died, alone and miserable and collecting checks from the very same welfare state she spent her prime years trashing. Turns out that The Invisible Hand is all well and dandy as well as it's jacking/jilling you off, but once it comes up to slap you in the face it stops being such a worship-worthy principle.
Tim H. says:
Carrstone, playing the game with some rules does not really equal socialism, it's just insuring the game doesn't get too ugly.
Big Sister says:
I stand corrected. Herbert Spencer. Point taken.
But, yes, social Darwinism IS a perversion of Darwinism.
daveawayfromhome says:
@ Carrstone: I think you may be confusing "envy" with a sense of "fairness" or perhaps "justice". When one group of people uses a social system to achieve their positions, then uses that position to deny the system to others, I would think that the only way that would create envy would be if the people feeling the envy were small-minded and lacking empathy or a sense of proportion.
As for the Job-creators killing their own golden goose, I don't actually think they give a damn; as long as they remain at the top of the pile, the size of the pile is fairly irrelevant.
Tim H. says:
Big Sister, the late Stephen Jay Gould wrote a nice take down of social Darwinism, "William Jennings Bryan's last campaaign", find it in "Bully for Brontosaurus". The only validity social Darwinism seems to possess is it's ability to be a fig leaf for sociopathy.
Major Kong says:
Objectivism is what happened when someone said:
"You know, libertarianism isn't quite batshit crazy enough. What if we threw a personality cult into the mix?"
Carrstone says:
Well, this is fun. I feel as though I’m the evil Dr. Frankenstein and, out of my tower window, I see the pitchfork-waving and torch-carrying villagers, with among them an over-representative sample of village idiots, coming up the hill, screaming imprecations because they think that everything is about them. Let’s see how to deal with them – some of them should be referred to Ed for writing class and some to the 11-year old daughter of a friend of mine for lessons in logic. But most of them I’d release on their own recognizances, if only to give them more time to learn to listen and understand what the other guy is saying.
@doug
Don't accuse me of hurling invective; in my best infantile manner I would say, “But he started it!” I refer you to GunstarGreen’s, ‘the only thing that trickles down is the warm, putrescent piss of the wealthy overlord class’. He offers no proof, d’you notice? Am I supposed just to swallow it? (See what I did there?)
@GunstarGreen (again)
Man, are you confused! Only the first iterations create a new product, then capital builds the assembly line and workers are hired to assemble the product, nothing changes from now on as the consumer wants consistent quality. But why am I saying all this, you knew it already; you’re just messing with me. I know you are, because only an idiot could draw the conclusions you draw in your pricing comments – ‘be able to afford to purchase’, plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.
@Xynzee
You’re just trying to shout louder than me. Where’s your proof that Randians/Libertarians believe as you say they do. And what’s this drum-beat dumb thing about evolution being ‘upwards’. You do realize, don’t you, that the dung-beetle (an element you are familiar with, I think) has been evolving just as long as homo sapiens? And that both are equal in being the best that natural selection has allowed to evolve for their species? And don’t kid yourself; like me, you’re an animal and there’s nothing special about you; your species arrogance makes me think that you believe in god, it wouldn’t surprise me that you’d fall for that bit of indoctrination as well. What I was doing, though, was subtly referring to Orwell who has things to say about socialism. It may be beyond you, but it’s quite an amusing read.
@charluckles
I hope your head gets better soon
@Bernard
You’re one of those I’d recommend for a writing and logic course with an emphasis on comprehension, grammar and punctuation. How can you expect me to respect your views if this is how you express them?
@daveawayfromhome
No, I can smell the envy and resentment from here. I can’t pretend that I really understand your convoluted opening paragraph but I presume you’re talking about organized labor, right? And I must point out the size of the pile is of utmost importance – it’s a score card. You know this is so because people with small piles add other ‘accomplishments’ to theirs.
Tim says:
Because freedom.
Jestbill says:
Judy Roderick – "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" – YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtX0tY-vHzA&feature=related
Major Kong says:
Libertarian – Isn't that what Republicans call themselves when they're trying to get laid?
Aaron says:
Why not be systematic instead of insulting? Nothing will stop your detractors like unambiguously articulating the truth.
Isn't the disagreement here over what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate types of advantage in a competition? Inappropriate types of advantage lead to perversions in the market (e.g. monopoly, murdering your competition), and appropriate advantages (better-trained employees, better organized management) are just strategic differences that will as a matter of course be decided by who 'wins' in the competition.
Ed's claim is that the Randian/Libertarian ought to think that inheritances are inappropriate advantages, because the Randian is committed to a view that glorifies the success of the individual whose excellence is self-originating. Inheritances are non-self-originating, and thus they'll obscure or hinder the achievement of self-originating excellences.
This whole 'conversation' got off track when the liberal tried to refute the Randian position by showing that almost no forms of excellence are self-originating (thus, all of the Social Darwinist talk), but are embedded in some kind of social or economic context. But the problem Ed is pointing out is much more limited in scope. Most libertarians defend the concept of legal inheritances, despite a prima facie case that such inheritances conflict with a generalized version of libertarianism. In other words, the much more limited problem for the libertarian is to show that the advantages offered by inheritance are self-originating ones, and thus are ones that society should strive to protect rather than dissolve.
The rest of this stuff really is just bs, generating a lot more heat than light.
Big Sister says:
Tim, I adore Stephen J Gould and I have read his essay. I think you actually wanted to address your comment to Carrstone. Just because I'm too lazy to look up which Spencer was the Social Darwinist, doesn't mean I don't understand how easy it is to demolish his quaint arguments.
I am a Recovering Academic, viz. a retired professor of Anthropology. I learned long ago ( before Stepen J. Gould even) that Spencer was full of puppy-poop.
Chuckles says:
Carrstone is there some message that you are wishing to communicate? At this point you could have just stated that you're an arrogant libertarian jerk. It would have served the same purpose and saved you a lot of time.
Carrstone says:
@BigSister
Ah, the teacher rises! Eager as I still am to learn, I would relish your critiques but spare me the labels we hang so readily on concepts that haven't been defined.
I realize that, as a teacher, you're accustomed to nodding heads around you, but I, for one, shall be awake.
Scotius says:
It's funny. I was just thinking about this today while reading an article on legacy admissions at Princeton that Eschatonblog pointed me to. It turns out that applicants to Princeton whose relatives had already atteneded were 4 times more likely to be accepted than just your run of the mill applicants. I guess this is some of that equal opportunities leading to unequal outcomes we've been hearing so much about.
http://www.businessinsider.com/princeton-university-president-legacy-applicants-2013-10
Big Sister says:
I really don't understand you, Carrstone. The fact that I was a teacher irritates you? Why? You seem to take this as some kind of egregious personal affront. I assure you, I did not intend to insult you.
Spencer has been thoroughly discussed and thoroughly discredited. If you want to clung to an outmoded theory, please do. It has absolutely no affect on me. In the immortal words of Captain Rhett Butler: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Corwin says:
A very sad comment thread demonstrating once again what happens when you feed the troll. In any case, I think the answer to Ed's original question was actually aired along the way. Libertarians oppose estate taxes (if,empirically, they do) because they oppose regulation that restricts individual freedom. In this view, I should be able to do whatever I wish with my accumulated wealth upon my death: leave it to my kids; give to Mr. Snuggles, my cat; donate it to charity; or have it piled up in the back yard and set on fire. In other words, the real question is not why libertarians support a repeal of estate taxes—it's why they leave their wealth (if, empirically, they do) to their kids rather than forcing them to learn the hard way that there's no such thing as a free lunch. It's almost like feeling for your fellow humans is actually more important than free-market ideology! And that for some people of limited empathy, the circle of humans who get the special treatment is limited to the family. For others, the tribe, and for others still, the nation or the planet.
Arslan says:
"You may be right, Arslan, 'envy' may not be quite right, I should have said 'resentment' where the former expresses 'hate that he has what he has' and the latter is the 'same hate augmented by the fact that it doesn't belong to me, instead'."
And what about the resentment capitalists show toward the workers who actually produce the wealth? And don't give me the typical ignorant bullshit about "but the capitalist owns the machines/raw materials/etc." That was just the product of other workers exploited by their boss.
"But enough about Ed on whose coattails you so happily travel (can't get going on your own, can you; need a little group solidarity, do you?)."
BULLSEYE! You got me. I mention Ed because I can't have a blog too. Having a blog is something that is very difficult to achieve in this world of Web 2.0. What a pathetic, childlike comment that was. I read this blog because I find it witty and it has a unique angle on many issues. Sometimes I disagree and when I do I say so. I think the rest of the regular readers here would say the same. I'm wondering what stupid childish comment you would say if I mentioned something like, "Brothers Karamazov is a great novel."
"OH YEAH! JUST KEEP KISSING DOSTOEVSKY'S ASS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T WRITE YOUR OWN LATE 19TH CENTURY RUSSIAN NOVEL!!"
" I just wanted to point out to you that not everybody wants to start a business or buy a house so your blanket assertion is wet."
Oh shit you just sank my battleship because my ENTIRE argument was predicated on the assumption that EVERY PERSON on earth wants to start a business or buy a house. That is PRECISELY what I was saying.
"I guess you're right about the power of propaganda, though; starting, I guess, with Clinton, the propaganda that everyone should own a house is a major factor in the current recession,"
Yeah, because the cult of home ownership in America began in the Clinton era. Right. Have you ever head of the so-called "American dream?" Have you ever watched or read anything published before you were born?
"particularly as the proletariat doesn't have the nous to know their ARM from their elbow thus confirming that you can fool most of the people most of the time."
The proletariat(of which you may actually be a part and probably don't know it) knows a lot more than you give it credit for.
"All this incredulous overreaching is punishable by economic hardship on all sides. Frankly, it's of some satisfaction to me to see how effectively the market system works with employers paying what the market will bear and not what the employee thinks he's worth."
Idiocy. Sheer, uncut idiocy. The economic crisis has roots going back to 1970. And as someone tried to point out to you, YES, workers greatly increased their productivity. The fact that they did this on things like computers doesn't change that fact. The workers produced more, but unlike in the past(since 1820, when real wage statistics in the US started being compiled), the employers stopped being so generous. They started appropriating more of the surplus value their employees produced. In place of rising real wages, there was an expansion of personal credit.
Workers are paid the lowest amount capitalists can get away with, depending on a variety of factors. If you decide that's what "the market"(an abstraction) will bear, then you are essentially contradicting any idea that hard work is the route to success.
"I think you may have missed my point on competition, though. If, as you say, competitors must have the exact same attributes, there cannot, by definition, be a winner. Competition's role is to determine a winner from among competitors who share some but not all traits – it's idiotic to suggest, as Ed does, that I'd 'strap boxing gloves onto complete invalids tied to a pole and let them do 10 rounds with Tyson.' We know who's going to win, where's the fun in that?"
It's kind of like how capitalists secure their power with the help of the military, police, and public schools on one hand, and private institutions like universities and mass media on the other. But history teaches us that these rulers eventually become arrogant to the point where they delude themselves into believing that their wealth was due to some inborn talent or superiority as opposed to luck of the draw and a system run in their favor.
Khaled says:
Randians oppose "death taxes" because they oppose all taxes- the whole "taxation is theft" drivel- as if the whole country could run 100% tomorrow with no government at all- I keep seeing facebook memes with "with the government shut down, who will spy on me! LOLZ OMG" themes. As if the US government is a police state a la Stalin's Russia (which it is certainly not, but that's beside the point).
As to the wage stagnation of the past 30 or 40 years, what amazes me is how the capital markets have been perverted by upper management of companies to be a slot machine- only if they miss, they get a huge golden parachute on their way out the door- so much for "risk" and "I built that" when even if you screw up, your bonus is bigger than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes- AIG's CEO is an example of this.
The other takeaway (b-school buzzword, I know) from the wage stagnation is how our government has subsidized the product of agriculture in this country- not only Farm Bills, but also the meat packing industry to import foreign workers (usually from Mexico) to work at the plants, since they "can't find willing workers", as if getting paid 7 bucks an hour to risk amputation and work in foul conditions was something everyone should trip over themselves to line up for work.
We have a huge problem with class in this country, and this will destroy our democracy. It is easier for dumb rich kids to graduate from college than smart poor kids- we are wasting our talented youth to drugs, crime and violence. Inheritance taxes should exist because they keep our country from becoming a feudal state- only I think we're halfway there already.
Carrstone says:
#BigSister
I don't mind your having been a teacher, to each his own.
I was, however, hoping that you would make good on your claim, a lone figure among all the voices raised against me in this blog's Comments, to demolish my quaint arguments.
Hey ho, another hope dashed.
Carrstone says:
@Corwin
You're exactly right, but not in the way you mean. The freedom of choice is what matters and there are, indeed, millionaires who don't leave their wealth to their progeny.
There's no getting away from it, though, however abhorrent inheritance practices are to you, if one unexpectedly came your way, there's no denying the frisson that would run up your leg.
Carrstone says:
@Arslan
Resentment towards workers? What can you mean, they pay them, don’t they?
Good luck on starting your own blog and may you have, as Ed does, many followers standing in line, like babies in a warm, well-filled nappy because of the comfort of a common mantra. To keep the record straight, I would agree that Karamazov is a good read, but then, I’ve read it.
A cult of homeownership? Cult? Not a cult but a re-election strategy funded by taxpayer dollars that lured the ‘wise’ proletariat into a trap that would destroy existences. But what do politicians care? Après moi, le deluge …
In my book, hard work IS the road to success; having a supportive boss increases the likelihood of achieving it; it all depends, though, on how you define success.
Your last paragraph is an example of the mantra I was talking about and, as such, just noise. You have, however, encapsulated within it, presumably unintentionally, an essential truth: there is no such thing as stasis, no paradise (socialist or otherwise); everything is in flux and targets need to be revised constantly – as Eisenhower once said – ‘plans are useless, planning is essential’ or, even longer ago, ‘sic gloria transit mundi’.
That being so, it can be no surprise that the bosses don’t feel themselves called upon to ensure that the workers are comfy but will treat them as but one of the means of production to be replaced when they are no longer cost-effective just as THEY are replaced – often with greater frequency, once they are not contributing to the well-being of the corporate effort – get used to it.
But a word to the wise – don’t hyperventilate so, you’ll do yourself an injury. And stylistically comments in the form of questions or unsupported opinions don’t quite cut it; you need to get that right before starting your own blog, buddy.
Carrstone says:
#Khaled
Blame yourself, you and others like you helped vote the government into place.
And yes, we do have a problem with class – everyone has the vote, irrespective of whether they understand what the issues are.
And I'm against taxes if raised by being levied on incomes from money that has already been taxed once before – like, e.g. your Savings Plan.
Carrstone says:
@fastEddie
As to 1) – I asked a clarification question. If he doesn’t agree, he can always correct me.
As to 2) – My advice was prompted by the deluded view I thought I had recognized and was well-meant.
Not about Rand or Libertarianism? So what? I read what was there and responded to what was being said. If I failed to understand what was being said, the fault is with the author for not making his message clear.
What’s with all the labels you lefty loons like to employ? Where do you get your certainty that “Objectivist Superman Randites” oppose inheritance taxes? Are they the only ones to do so and what are the numbers involved? Or is it just wishful thinking and a rhetorical gambit on your part?
If you were to attain your Utopia you would automatically be a Conservative, you do understand that, don’t you?
sarf says:
@c u n d gulag (or whomever it may concern)
In reply to: Children have negative ROI and hence no Randian should ever have them.
Now now, there certainly are some ways of having children for a True Randian Hero ™ – without giving up your precious, young-adult-who-just-left-home-and-still-gets-money-from-your-parents freedom:
1. Make the wimmen do it.
Not just having the child – you can also make her bring up the child! On HER dime! (And, hopefully, have it leave her while in a snit and come join you in Galt's Gulch).
Remember – child support is STATE TYRANNY/SOCIALISM! And bad.
Note: This option is viable for female Randroids, too – but it does require a bit more work getting the egg out and into the host (what, you expected her to give up 9 months of her life to the child? For shame!).
2. Make the state do it.
Orphanages? I prefer to call them child exchange stations! As long as you pay tax (or even if you don't) you have a Rand-given right – nay, responsibility! – to get your moneys worth.
Also, scout the local talent – there may be some young Randian Heroes in the making there! Look for empty eyes and a copy of the Fountainhead.
As for children not providing ROI – that's silly, and just because The Man keeps us, like totally down. Once we get child labour laws abolished, not to mention the silly restrictions on human experimentation, why, you'll see that children will become a rare resource! And hence, due to the magic of supply and demand and our new, free-er market – valuable!
Kidneys don't grow on trees, y'know – they grow in the children! Soylent Green is people – and it tastes GRRREAT!
You also avoid some of the seemier side of our Libertarian Stalwarts (hint: age of consent? arglebargle individual choice/free will/MY MONIES) in denying certain ROIs with children – but perhaps I digress!
Arslan says:
"Resentment towards workers? What can you mean, they pay them, don’t they?"
Wow, what an ignorant comment.
"Good luck on starting your own blog and may you have, as Ed does, many followers standing in line, like babies in a warm, well-filled nappy because of the comfort of a common mantra. "
Another red herring.
"To keep the record straight, I would agree that Karamazov is a good read, but then, I’ve read it."
So have I. Your point?
"A cult of homeownership? Cult? Not a cult but a re-election strategy funded by taxpayer dollars that lured the ‘wise’ proletariat into a trap that would destroy existences. But what do politicians care? Après moi, le deluge …"
HURRR!!! YOU USED THE TERM CULT BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A CULT! Typical conservative childish semantic bullshit.
Please tell us what this "taxpayer funded trap" was exactly. The closest you could come to positing such an idea is that Republican strategy of convincing millions of people that tax cuts would solve all their problems. You could possibly be referring to the Federally backed mortgages post-WWII but then every historian or economist would promptly inform you that you are an ignorant moron because that action was both essential to avoiding the mistakes of WWI demobilization and it created America's large "middle class," giving social mobility to millions.
"In my book, hard work IS the road to success; having a supportive boss increases the likelihood of achieving it; it all depends, though, on how you define success."
Well your book happens to be pretty soundly refuted by historical and sociological data.
"Your last paragraph is an example of the mantra I was talking about and, as such, just noise. You have, however, encapsulated within it, presumably unintentionally, an essential truth: there is no such thing as stasis, no paradise (socialist or otherwise); everything is in flux and targets need to be revised constantly – as Eisenhower once said – ‘plans are useless, planning is essential’ or, even longer ago, ‘sic gloria transit mundi’."
You know what's funny about your writing? I can see how much effort you put into trying to come off as intellectual, and if people can see it, the less intellectual you seem. Look I'm glad you put that word-a-day calender grandma got you to good use and it's just ever so awesome to shoehorn random Latin and French proverbs into your utterly empty paragraphs but the fact is they cannot substitute for actual intellect. We're all familiar with "that guy" who goes around giving obviously rehearsed speeches about various "intellectual" topics at parties in hopes that people will find him intelligent and witty. It fails every single time.
Now that I have said this you'll most likely pull out the typical pseudo-intellectual response, "HA YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND MY MASSIVE VOCABULARY! L'ETAT C'EST MOI! ALEA IACTA EST!!!" So I'm going to pre-empt that by explaining this very simply: Yes, I GET what you're trying to say, but there's no substance in your arguments. There's no evidence. Your claims are refuted by material reality, both the present and history.
"That being so, it can be no surprise that the bosses don’t feel themselves called upon to ensure that the workers are comfy but will treat them as but one of the means of production to be replaced when they are no longer cost-effective just as THEY are replaced – often with greater frequency, once they are not contributing to the well-being of the corporate effort – get used to it."
We are used to it. The cool thing is, we don't have to be.
"But a word to the wise – don’t hyperventilate so, you’ll do yourself an injury."
See a simple "U MAD BRO" would have sufficed here.
" And stylistically comments in the form of questions or unsupported opinions don’t quite cut it; you need to get that right before starting your own blog, buddy."
Holy shit, you mean I CAN'T make a blog just by compiling my comments from other blogs and perhaps throwing in a few Facebook status updates? WOW! You must be a professor of English or something!
Arslan says:
"I was, however, hoping that you would make good on your claim, a lone figure among all the voices raised against me in this blog's Comments, to demolish my quaint arguments.
Hey ho, another hope dashed."
Your "arguments," which mostly consist of semantic bullshit often spouted by 18-22-year-olds who have lived most of their life on the internet and have little real experience or actual knowledge, were "demolished" before you posted them.
But by all means, concentrate every last ounce of your white nerd rage into a critical mass so that you might be able to present at least ONE coherent argument on here, and perhaps one of us will kindly show you how easily a properly-constructed albeit ignorant argument can be smacked down. The problem is that you haven't presented an argument. Saying things like "You label people," or "not ALL of those people do X" are not coherent arguments. Premise, conclusion, motherfucker. Learn it.
Carrstone says:
@Arslan
It’s you who coined ‘the cult of home ownership.’ I’m the one who expressed amazement at your choice of the word ‘cult’ because the housing boom wasn’t so much a cult as a bandwagon funded by tax dollars. Both sides of the political fence encouraged banks to make loans available to candidates who should not have been enticed (and hence ‘trapped’) into making loan applications.
Those tax cuts you mention, are they the ones that Obama prolonged? And that fed-backed mortgage program that was so successful, you say, after WWII, why didn’t it work this time? And if my claims are refuted by material reality, why don’t you show me that reality instead of yelling ‘there’s no substance in your arguments’. I mean, if you’ve judged my arguments you should at least have the courage to let me judge whether yours are any more substantive.
It’s regrettable that you are offended by the odd bon-mot or quote I throw in for the sake of brevity and comprehension, it’s something we intellectuals do. I also make an effort to ensure that mine are always appropriate and apposite, which, regrettably, cannot be said for your ‘alea iacta est’.
So, if ‘we’ are used to being replaced, how does ‘we don’t have to be’ work? Do you refuse to be fired, do you demonstrate, do you beat up people, do you go on strike, or do you, killer-move this, get your union involved? And how’s it working out for you?
You interrupt my conversation with BigSister and I wouldn’t have said anything because it’s what I would expect of you, were it not for the fact that you’ve suddenly turned racist on me by calling me a ‘white nerd’, for shame! As for calling me a motherfucker, I’m not offended; you probably speak from experience.
Tim H. says:
Carrstone, are you suggesting that the squalor of the unfortunate accentuates the glory of your success? Because you're sounding like that. Dennis Leary's "I'm an asshole" wasintended as amusement, not instruction.
Arslan says:
Oh good, another does of whining and childish semantic arguments.
"It’s you who coined ‘the cult of home ownership.’ I’m the one who expressed amazement at your choice of the word ‘cult’ because the housing boom wasn’t so much a cult as a bandwagon funded by tax dollars."
Holy shit do I have to break every term down to its lowest, irreducible level just to avoid having you take things literally? I was referring to the well-known belief in America that home ownership is a sign of success and an icon of the so-called "American dream," going back to the post-war 40's. This was the drive for people to own homes at any cost.
" Both sides of the political fence encouraged banks to make loans available to candidates who should not have been enticed (and hence ‘trapped’) into making loan applications."
Um no, the exact opposite is true. Some states(such as NY) attempted to use consumer protection laws to prevent this kind of predatory lending. Sub-prime mortgages had absolutely nothing to do with the government unless you count the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which is something the banks lobbied for.
The market determined that mortgages were profitable. Investors follow the market. It's funny how you're so selective about that. Traditionally, the responsibility to appraise the debtor's ability to pay back the loan fell on the shoulders of the lender. Banks willingly made this decision because they were following their short term interest, the hallmark of a capitalist market-driven system. This bit them in the ass, and that's when they went to the tax payers. The fact that the public is made to pay for their mismanagement ought to be instructive.
"Those tax cuts you mention, are they the ones that Obama prolonged?"
Oh dear, it thinks I'm an Obama supporter.
"And that fed-backed mortgage program that was so successful, you say, after WWII, why didn’t it work this time? And if my claims are refuted by material reality, why don’t you show me that reality instead of yelling ‘there’s no substance in your arguments’."
This is fucking hilarious. READ what you wrote. Do you REALLY need me to explain why a program that was successful in the 1940s(and specifically aimed at war vets) WASN'T successful after it was significantly changed DECADES later? Here's a hint: See how I keep referring to after WWII? Perhaps you weren't aware but the Second World War WASN'T just the setting of the successful Call of Duty games you love, but in fact a REAL historical event with massive consequences shaping the rest of the 20th century and even our world today. I'm going to be very generous to you and give you the opportunity to use you OWN brain to figure out why America's economy was different in the immediate post-war era and then suddenly changed starting around 1970. Think REAL hard about this.
"It’s regrettable that you are offended by the odd bon-mot or quote I throw in for the sake of brevity and comprehension, it’s something we intellectuals do. "
Hmm…I don't remember saying anything about being offended. I referred to it as "funny." Is "offended" the word that goes with "funny?" If you were an intellectual you would be able to construct a coherent argument and maybe provide some evidence to back it up, instead of vague, incoherent ramblings that require significant improvement just to achieve the status of "incorrect."
"I also make an effort to ensure that mine are always appropriate and apposite, which, regrettably, cannot be said for your ‘alea iacta est’.""
The concept of sarcasm and mockery are clearly foreign to you. And actually your idiotic posturing isn't "appropriate", which is what makes it so obvious. When a person makes a coherent argument, I'm happy to engage in polemics with them. Recently on this very blog someone made such an argument and I actually went through the trouble of transcribing a piece of correspondence from an archival document in support of my position, including the source. You do not make coherent arguments other than accusing working people of unjustified resentment and blaming the government for an economic crisis which was largely caused by banks.
"So, if ‘we’ are used to being replaced, how does ‘we don’t have to be’ work? Do you refuse to be fired, do you demonstrate, do you beat up people, do you go on strike, or do you, killer-move this, get your union involved? And how’s it working out for you?"
Actually it's worked out quite well in the past and in countries where unions are still strong. See this is what I mean when I say your "arguments" are contradicted by material reality. You clearly don't have much experience in the world, as is evident by your 19-twenty-something year old Redditor "debate" style, so if someone mentions unions or anything else you are personally ignorant about you respond with a smug, sarcastic "How's that working out?" Well here's a novel concept. Let's look at the entire history of the labor movement and see what happened when it was strong and also look at what happened when it got weaker, particularly in the US. Let's try comparing things like wages and salaries in right-to-work states vs. closed shop states. Let's ACTUALLY do some research instead of relying on the sum total of ideas we formed up to the age of 17!
Arslan says:
Respond with coherent arguments- get debate.
Respond with psuedo-intellectual posturing and childish semantic gibberish and nit-picking- get more insults.
It's that simple. You cannot troll a troll.
Carrstone says:
@TinH
Nope
c u n d gulag says:
sarf,
GOOD POINTS!
Carrstone says:
@Arslan
You probably don’t recall that it was not I who first talked about a ‘cult of homeownership’ and that, in a later diatribe, you amusingly informed me, still attributing the phrase’s authorship to me, that you judged it to be ‘Typical conservative childish semantic bullshit.’ How embarrassing now for you, even though your assessment is correct, that you continue to ascribe the phrase to me; I’ve now twice corrected you – you really need to learn to read.
“Holy shit do I have to break every term down to its lowest, irreducible level just to avoid having you take things literally?” And you know about the link between the American dream and homeownership how? Do you know what the ownership percentages are in Europe, the only part of the world comparable in this to the US?
But to answer your question: yes, you do because you waffle and try to bully so much that it’s often not easy to extract what it is you’re trying to say from among all the invective dross you spew – it’s fun to read but not productive. If the ‘American Dream’ as you say “was the drive”, why did the historic sale price curve for housing, for years around 5% p.a. where I live, suddenly spiral to above 25% for the years immediately before the crash? How do you explain the deviation from the norm? And don’t trail your Glass-Steagall Act coat here, my man; I’m not picking up that scent.
Probably the dumbest thing you’ve said so far is that ‘Banks willingly made this decision (to invest) because they were following their short term interest, … This bit them in the ass’. That there was a shake-out I won’t deny (too little and too late), but how is the banking world different now after being bitten? More compliant, more customer friendly, more readily handing out mortgages?
And here’s a bit of ‘material reality’: the WSJ reported in 2012 a 71% employment growth in right-to-work states from 1980 to 2011, while employment in non-right-to-work states grew just 32% during the same period; since 2001, compensation in right-to-work states had increased 4 times faster than in other states.
I won’t listen to the unions’ point of view because, to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they.’ Also, like you, they shout too much, probably because they're aware they don’t have a case; and if I compare the US unions to the ones in Germany, say, they’re doing their membership a disservice and taking their money under false pretenses.
I shrug you off, Arslan, with a disdainful wave of my hand. You’re just hot air, a bullying blow-hard and your ideas about capitalism, owners and workers are outdated, but I will concede that there might be a little “You say tomato and I say tomato” in that air – it’s all in the perception, isn’t it?
JohnR says:
It's always a pleasure to see the work of an erudite troll. Not all trolls are created equal, after all! To Carrstone, a full set of my finest and most genteel golf claps – this has been one of the longest and most engaged comment threads in quite a while. You're portraying an unpleasant person, but a well-spoken one. It might benefit you to occasionally think (not that it's likely that you would) that whenever you point a finger, three fingers are pointing back at you. Still, I never let that stop me; why should you?
Arslan says:
I found a better way to deal with Carrstone's Dunning-Kruger effect gibberish. It's basically a type of filter, dividing the post into two parts for the sake of efficiency.
ACTUAL ATTEMPTS AT A COHERENT ARGUMENT:
"And here’s a bit of ‘material reality’: the WSJ reported in 2012 a 71% employment growth in right-to-work states from 1980 to 2011, while employment in non-right-to-work states grew just 32% during the same period; since 2001, compensation in right-to-work states had increased 4 times faster than in other states."
Oh is THIS the WSJ article you were referring to?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324296604578179603136860138
I ask for two reasons. One is because I found it in two seconds in Google when I searched for "right-to-work vs union states", making me think you basically did the same thing with no prior research. Second the article is rather poorly written, making references to "some economists" without names, and generally glosses over the fact that these jobs are far less secure.
"That there was a shake-out I won’t deny (too little and too late), but how is the banking world different now after being bitten? More compliant, more customer friendly, more readily handing out mortgages?"
Creditors assume responsibility for determining the trustworthiness of the debtor. Nobody forced these banks to invent sub-prime mortgages.
And you won't listen to unions but you'll obviously listen to paid pundits, think tank economists, and AM radio DJs, as is evident from the tired old social-Darwinist rhetoric you've been spouting. That's what makes it so hilarious that you'd call my views "out-dated." You've just been regurgitating a modern version of the same self-delusional shit bourgeois intellectuals have been turning out since the industrial revolution.
RED HERRINGS, POSTURING, PSUEDO-INTELLECTUAL BULLSHIT, ETC.
You probably don’t recall that it was not I who first talked about a ‘cult of homeownership’ and that, in a later diatribe, you amusingly informed me, still attributing the phrase’s authorship to me, that you judged it to be ‘Typical conservative childish semantic bullshit.’ How embarrassing now for you, even though your assessment is correct, that you continue to ascribe the phrase to me; I’ve now twice corrected you – you really need to learn to read.
“Holy shit do I have to break every term down to its lowest, irreducible level just to avoid having you take things literally?” And you know about the link between the American dream and homeownership how? Do you know what the ownership percentages are in Europe, the only part of the world comparable in this to the US?
I won’t listen to the unions’ point of view because, to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they.’ Also, like you, they shout too much, probably because they're aware they don’t have a case; and if I compare the US unions to the ones in Germany, say, they’re doing their membership a disservice and taking their money under false pretenses.
I shrug you off, Arslan, with a disdainful wave of my hand. You’re just hot air, a bullying blow-hard and your ideas about capitalism, owners and workers are outdated, but I will concede that there might be a little “You say tomato and I say tomato” in that air – it’s all in the perception, isn’t it?
Arslan says:
I imagine this dipshit watching a movie like Blazing Saddles and saying "HEY! THOSE ARE WWII GERMAN SOLDIERS! THEY DON'T BELONG IN A COWBOY WESTERN MOVIE! THAT'S AN ANACHRONISM!!!"
khaled says:
@ Carrstone-
Where in my post did I speak about elections?
*peers up*
Nope! Not there! And I'm not a liberal person, per se, I'm more middle of the road. However, I do think, and so I realize that a total shutdown in government and a debt default are both terrible ideas.
The point I made about a "class" system: "Class" is being created in America by the super wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and the abject failure of education in the inner cities and poor rural areas. We are rewarding people by their birth, not by their merits- which is a class system.
If you're going to argue/ debate my points, at least get them correct. Of course, you'll just call me names, or whatever.
Carrstone says:
@JohnR
Thank you, my dear sir, for your encouraging words, one attempts to remain in character.
But, fyi, I was known as Softie on the trireme
Carrstone says:
@Aslan
You Googled? Good for you; there are some 45 million entries for “Banks forced to make loans,” one after another making my points. It confirms for me that you don’t know as much as you say you do which, of course, explains your strident, panicky tone.
There are 273+million entries for “Employment rates for RTW-States” –knock yourself out, it’s more of a mixed bag, but I think I win! Here’s a sample:
"According to Michigan’s Mackinac Center, using data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011 compared with just 3% over the same period in forced-unionization states.
These good wages came from good jobs. Employment in right-to-work states expanded 2.4% over the same stretch vs. a 3.4% decline in non-right-to-work states. Ironically, Obama is taking credit for jobs created in RTW states.
According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, right-to-work states (excluding Indiana, which passed a RTW law in early 2012) “were responsible for 72% of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012.”
This is why people vote with their feet and move to these states. RTW states experienced large population gains of 15.3% from 2000 to 2010, compared to 5.9% in non-RTW states.
(From Wintery Knights. Salon, of course, has its own take but they would, wouldn't they?)
But don’t despair, just go on reading and commenting on Ed’s blog in your usual manner; you fit right in among the loonies and lefties and I promise I won’t tell.
bb in GA says:
As a Christian/Libertarian, I believe in the proverb "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children." but that certainly doesn't preclude an inheritance tax.
I also believe in the Sin Nature of Man, so that the concentration of wealth and power is mostly going to have negative results.
I have noticed that many outspoken Randians are also atheists, so they likely have little interest in any spiritual approaches to these problems.
Some of Y'all get too exercised w/ the contrarians and lapse into ad hominem .
Just because somebody writes "You're ugly and your momma dresses you funny!" doesn't obligate you to answer. If that were true I would have a full time job just keeping up w/ Bernard :-)
//bb
LED Lamps says:
Wow, this article iss pleasant, my younger sister is analyzing these kinds
of things, thus I am going to tell her.